Eugene Volokh on Gun Rights, Free Expression, and the Nanny State

migkillertwo Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - Alabama's constitution has no doctrine of enumerated powers I see.

oilhammer04 Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - The constitution does not speak specifically to the right to drive a car, but it does recognize the right to keep and bear arms.

BFC2011 Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - The Volokh Conspiracy. Great blog.

averagejoe040 Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - He's a mountain of jello. Seems Volokh could go either way on just about any issue.

Wormtail81 Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - Aristotle was the same way lol

furyofbongos Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - Switzerland has a gun in every house and one of the lowest violent crime rates. "Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept." -BBC

dankalmanson Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - I think it is funny that since 'conspiracy' is a tag, Alex Jones is all over the related videos.

thughug22 Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - @oilhammer04 I'm just saying that some people can't get a licens to drive because they can't do it safely.

highonhayek Says:

Mar 2, 2010 - Adding The Volokh Conspiracy to my list of blogs...

KaelinSaint Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - Which amendment was that again? The one that asserts your right to own and drive a car?

oilhammer04 Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - That seems reasonable, but then, when the government wants to license the carrying of guns, then those in power will limit *who* gets to carry to their friends, eventually. I do agree that people need to be trained in the safe use of guns. Some of us were raised around guns and understand how to use them safely, but many weren't blessed with that upbringing.

BoojumFed Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - @oilhammer04: If the government wanted to begin limiting carrying rights in any way (beyond weeding out incompetent or criminal applicants) that would be an entirely different piece of legislation. Despite the popular rhetoric, no piece of legislation can act as the beginning of a "slippery slope", because each is a step, not a slope. They *may* begin a staircase, but since each step must be passed individually, the scenario you propose must be supported by the majority to ever occur.

BoojumFed Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - That's because anything that's actually an issue has valid points on both sides...

thughug22 Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - @oilhammer04 It's one of those things where everyone should have the right to own and carry a gun but some people are incompitant. I guess the problem would fix its self because all the dump ass' would get shot for fucking around, you know.

bigboss686 Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - if you can regulate rights, then you have no rights at all. "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943. "The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional." --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

jfb1138 Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - BoojumFed: You might want to Google Volokh + "Slippery Slope". His discussion of how 'stairs' turn into escalators is worth noting.

whoo689 Says:

Mar 3, 2010 - Volokh needs to keep his post as law professor there as long as possible, so there's less influence of a future liberal law professor being hired in his place. ;)

yougiberishtube Says:

Mar 5, 2010 - 5 stars

welkinator Says:

Mar 6, 2010 - I suggest that if everyone was armed we would live in a FAR more polite society.

Mackingster Says:

Mar 8, 2010 - How about atavist judges? Are they outside of the law?

glennd7962 Says:

Mar 10, 2010 - 'Too clever by half' is how this guy comes off on his blog and in person. His presentation of the crime reduction experienced by states with concealed permit laws give's him away. First, it doesn't need to be a "massive, massive" difference to be worthy. Second, the entire argument is utilitarian versus principled. Also, when choosing to comment on constitutional language, he doesn't mention that the second amendment doesn't start with "Congress shall.." like the first amendment. Interesting...

TheWeizOne Says:

Mar 19, 2010 - I'm sure this has been said before, but it bears repeating. A person who is going to use a gun to break the law is not going to care about the laws pertaining to the acquisition and carrying of the gun. Gun laws keep law abiding citizens from getting, carrying, and using guns in a legal fashion to protect themselves and others from those willing to break the law.

getnick77 Says:

Apr 9, 2010 - @glennd7962 no the second amendment ends with "shall not be infringed", all states with CCW have seen reductions in overall crime including homicide, and if by utilitarian you mean according to facts and by principled you mean emotional then you are correct.

BEGOODTOYOURDOG1 Says:

Apr 22, 2010 - Everybody says the final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries to bring in the third world and assimilate with them. Immigration, tolerance, and especially assimilation are being used against the White race. All this immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries. Anti-White is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race, the White race. It is genocide.

Americathebrave100 Says:

Jul 7, 2010 - Professor Volokh is a genius! No one will ever take my right away for free speech.