UCLA Professor Adam Winkler.

[nicki]

Guys,

I thought that UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler was one of the Brady's top legal minds, yet he wrote this article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/3/

This is a guy who spares with Eugene Volk, could it be possible to flip this guy over to our side?

Doing so would devastate the Brady's. Before you guys say it can't be done, many of our strongest supporters used to be on the wrong side.

Nicki

[OleCuss]

Thank you. That was a very interesting read. Well worth the time.

The last few paragraphs is where I think he runs into problems - on the rest I'll assume he has the history correct.

[tgriffin]

Eh interesting article. I may still be rubbing the sleep out of my eyes, but it didn't seen to address the racial aspects of early gun control.

[loose_electron]

well written piece of history, but start the read from the top:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/3/?single_page=true

Also, here's an interesting one as well:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/03/the-false-promise-of-gun-control/6744/?single_page=true

The false promise of gun control...
A quick excerpt:

"Gun-control laws don’t work. What is worse, they act perversely. While legitimate users of firearms encounter intense regulation, scrutiny, and bureaucratic control, illicit markets easily adapt to whatever difficulties a free society throws in their way. Also, efforts to curtail the supply of firearms inflict collateral damage on freedom and privacy interests that have long been considered central to American public life. Thanks to the seemingly never-ending war on drugs and long experience attempting to suppress prostitution and pornography, we know a great deal about how illicit markets function and how costly to the public attempts to control them can be. It is essential that we make use of this experience in coming to grips with gun control. "

[loose_electron]

Eh interesting article. I may still be rubbing the sleep out of my eyes, but it didn't seen to address the racial aspects of early gun control.

Its in the top of the article - the original link started on the 2-3rd page.

[tgriffin]

Ah, much better.

[dantodd]

Dupe: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...wpost&t=464775

Adam is very smart it would be worth pre-ordering his upcoming book "Gunfight"

[Connor P Price]

Adam Winkler is a great writer and a heck of a teacher from what I gather from the few times I've interacted with him online. I always thought he was a pro gun guy until I found out he hangs out with brady's as well. Truth is, he's sort of a centrist when it comes to guns and gun rights. I've seen him joke that his friends in the gun rights community hate him because he supports some aspects of gun control but his friends in the gun control community hate him because he refuses to support all gun control.

[Bruce]

Interesting how the Hispanic and African-American legislators willfully continue the racist policies of their predecesors in the leigislature. Getting even perhaps?
It also explains the whole "NRA wrote the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA" thing. Those who decry the NRA for those laws need to read the history of those acts. Today's NRA isn't the same as the pre-77 NRA. Too bad GOA et al; have chosen to use half-truths in order to enrich their organizations.

[Apocalypsenerd]

That article was a good read.

[swilson]

Thanks to the seemingly never-ending war on drugs and long experience attempting to suppress prostitution and pornography, we know a great deal about how illicit markets function and how costly to the public attempts to control them can be. It is essential that we make use of this experience in coming to grips with gun control.

After I read this statement I couldn't help but consider how powerful this idea is. Consider how much the war on drugs has cost American taxpayers. Drugsense.org says the feds spent over $15 billion in 2010, and state and local governments another $25 billion, and the availability of drugs has not stopped to put it lightly. Even without the budget and deficit problems many people, including those who are anti-drug, are disappointed with the cost of battling drugs, the lack of results, and the criminals who benefit from the illicit market created by making drugs illegal.

Now think of the costs associated with gun control. As we've seen from Canada registration is expensive (what did it cost, $2 billion?), and you can bet that confiscation and deterrance would easily cost the same amount as the war on drugs and have the same effect. Guns are an old technology and drugs are an old crop. Both are easy to produce, store, transport, and buy/sell legally or illegally. If anything guns have a longer shelf life.

I know many gun owners hate likening gun rights to drug legalization, but I think the costs vs. benefits of the war on drugs is a good indicator for what one can expect from a war on guns.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

well written piece of history, but start the read from the top:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/3/?single_page=true

Also, here's an interesting one as well:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/03/the-false-promise-of-gun-control/6744/?single_page=true

The second article was a GREAT read.


The Raisuli

[brassburnz]

There is a UCLA Law Review article that Prof. Winkler wrote regarding DC vs Heller and the book, Catch-22 by Joseph Heller (no relation) that is quite a good read. I can't attach the link here because it pops up as a PDF file, but you can find it using Yahoo by typing " adam winkler law review "

Prof. Winker discusses Justice Scalia's opinion and the "catch-22" of his rationale.

<< HELLER ' S CATCH -22 Adam Winkler* Joseph Heller's satire Catch-22 has become a classic for its revealing look at the illogic, inconsistency, and circular reasoning common in modern bureaucratic life. This Article uses Heller's novel to frame a critical analysis of the recent landmark Second Amendment decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that carries the Catch-22 author's surname, District of Columbia v. Heller . The majority opinion in Heller suffers from many of the missteps and contradictions Heller's novel identified.

Although hailed as a "triumph of originalism," the opinion paradoxically relies on a thoroughly modern understanding of gun rights. Justice Scalia has argued that originalism is necessary to preserve the legitimacy of the Court, but Heller is more likely to be accepted as legitimate precisely because Scalia's opinion departed from the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Moreover, this celebrated landmark decision has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control.

To date, the federal courts have yet to invalidate a single gun control law for violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, despite scores of cases. While some laws are sure to be invalidated in time, the new Second Amendment's bark is far worse than its right. The greatest irony is that Heller 's logical flaws and inconsistencies improve the decision, making it more likely to endure and helping to cement a reasonable, not radical, right to bear arms.>>

[bigcalidave]

Good history article, good link if anyone needs a link to the racist birth of gun control, but why did he write all that only to skip the latest developments, not menton McDonald, ignore all the irrelevant modern regulations we face etc? Just a broad claim that heller didn't have any gains ?

[GrayWolf09]

Good history article, good link if anyone needs a link to the racist birth of gun control, but why did he write all that only to skip the latest developments, not menton McDonald, ignore all the irrelevant modern regulations we face etc? Just a broad claim that heller didn't have any gains ?

The article is an excerpt from his soon to be released book. Hopefully the book will fill in the blanks.