UCLA Professor Adam Winkler.

[brassburnz]

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

Find and read the UCLA Law Review article mentioned in my post. It answers all of your questions about post-Heller gun control laws and where they are going. I'm sure some of the comments he makes will be in the book.

I found a link. Hope it works.

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=adam+winkler+law+review&fr=yfp-t-701&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=adam+winkler+law+review&d=4528472043094200&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=2cc99c93,749ae1e2&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=YBmc52HEGkPeXk6p7DH1pQ--

[hoffmang]

Mr. Winkler is only barely on the other side. He's intellectually honest and his strongest dissent to his position is on the anti-gun side - not the pro-gun side.

-Gene

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Find and read the UCLA Law Review article mentioned in my post. It answers all of your questions about post-Heller gun control laws and where they are going. I'm sure some of the comments he makes will be in the book.

I found a link. Hope it works.

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?e...PeXk6p7DH1pQ--

The link worked.

I have a question though. The only date I can find in the thing is 8/03/11. Is that the date of the article? I ask because it never mentions McDonald, which addresses some of his ideas.

Something that did occur to me as I read the piece is that while there are problems with Heller, I'm not sure they're fatal errors. Mr. Winkler states that some longstanding bans (on felons, the mentally ill, etc) were "good law." I'm not sure that's the case. While Scalia mentioned that some longstanding bans were not struck down by Heller, that's not to say that a future case would leave those bans intact. Heller was (as everyone agrees) merely the first case. The cases that were sure to follow (like, McDonald) would further explain/expand the Right. So, who's to say that ex-felons won't have the Right again someday?


The Raisuli

[Mute]

I don't see this article as putting him on our side at all. If anything, it's a clever attempt at seeming to be moderate. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the way I read the article, he makes the NRA appear to be a once reasonable organization that has moved to the extreme (in the view of gun grabbers).

As for the NRA's support of the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968, the NRA only got behind these acts to try and gut as much as they could because, unfortunately, the public were duped into believing and supporting these abominations to the Constitution, and the NRA knew it.

Nope. Some leopards don't change their spots and Winkler is still anti-gun.

[ADH]

The courts have been inundated with lawsuits challenging nearly every type of gun regulation; in the three years since the Supreme Court’s decision, lower courts have issued more than 200 rulings on the constitutionality of gun control. In a disappointment to the gun-rights community, nearly all laws have been upheld.

I don't understand why the Anti-Rights crowd keeps bringing this up. It's like declaring a Super Bowl Champion during pre-season.

[762.DEFENSE]

Good afternoon read.