Ca. Conservative judge's 2A opinion

[Kapenagary]

Thought provoking?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

[Diablohtr]

Its a sad farce coming from a US Judge IMHO.

[stix213]

He gets points for not calling them "clips" but that is it.

His idea of "sensible" gun control is bans and confiscation of guns by the millions. This guy claims to be pro-2A, but out the other side of his mouth thinks that the little old civilians should always be outgunned by the state.

[russ69]

Even judges can be wrong, usually about half of them.

[Dave A]

I couldn't even read completely through it. When I got to where this supposed intelligent Judge alleged that the Aurora shooter emptied his 100 round magazine I lost interest in this reasoned approach. The reason of course is the magazine did not function properly and jammed as they tend to do. I guess there is still a gag order in place on the information on just how many rounds he managed to expend, probably to give more opportunity for people like this one to misinform the average citizen.

Lets focus on the tool and not the sick person, because we have proved we are totally inept in dealing with mental illness, the recognition of it and the appropriate treatment.

[211275]

The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns. Why do the media and people like this continue to lie? Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds. I say you dont ban any of the rifles, just limit them to 20 round magazines. Limit handguns to 10 round magazines. If you need more than that to take down an animal you are hunting or an intruder at your home, you have bigger issues, like target practice

[IVC]

The article contains the standard "gun control assumption fallacy" that banning something is equivalent to not having it in the society from that point on.

In reality, the AW-s and hi-capacity magazines will still be available and possessed, just not legally and not the by legal gun owners. There will still be a Laughner with a 31 round magazine and a Holmes with a 100 round drum.

[ScottB]

The article contains the standard "gun control assumption fallacy" that banning something is equivalent to not having it in the society from that point on.

In reality, the AW-s and hi-capacity magazines will still be available and possessed, just not legally and not the by legal gun owners. There will still be a Laughner with a 31 round magazine and a Holmes with a 100 round drum.

I think you missed the part where he calls for confiscation of all of those things.

[IVC]

Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds.

Completely agree that nobody needs any of that. However, you are advocating for banning it, so it's up to you to formulate what you plan to achieve by such a ban and how we are going to measure the effectiveness.

If it turns out that your ban was ineffective, then we have to repeal it since a capricious ban is an infringement. Now, we have all the data we need from the 1994-2004 ban and it was ineffective. QED.

[artoaster]

Emotion now, regret later. Government wins people lose. People's fault. Good people now can go to jail over magazines or how their rifles look.

[IVC]

I think you missed the part where he calls for confiscation of all of those things.

Confiscation doesn't ensure absence of objects from that point on.

Otherwise, we would just declare "confiscation of illegal drugs," everybody would turn them in, and the country would be clean the next day.

[REH]

Every time this "do you need that" comes up, I have to ask do we rally want a government telling us what we need? First it's guns, then magazine capacity, then your car because it's a gas guzzler, then your food, because it has too much sugar or salt. Let’s talk about your house. Is it self efficient? If not you will need solar panels. You want that?

[Harrison_Bergeron]

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.

Is he touting a 2:1 ratio to prove his side's superior statistics? I cannot stand when people pull that nonsense. That a supposedly intelligent, and unbiased, person would try such a dirty tactic in such an important debate makes me very angry.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I already think the man's scruples should be questioned, this bit makes me question whether he is fit to practice law. What he proposes here would violate how many Constitutional Amendments?

[SMR510]

How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?

[REH]

How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?

I think some of the media inaccurately reported that.