Professors say NRA is misreading Constitution
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/nra03282000.htm
A group of law and history professors accused the National Rifle Association yesterday of misleading the public by suggesting that proposed gun-control laws would violate the Constitution.
In a letter to NRA President Charlton Heston, who is slated to speak at Brandeis University tonight, the 47 professors said the NRA's ``repeated suggestions that the Second Amendment somehow stands in the way of effective and reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership is a distortion of legal precedent and a disservice to all Americans.''
An NRA spokesman declined comment on the professors' letter.
The letter said the amendment ``plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations,'' including bans on certain types of weapons, requirements for safety devices and gun registration and licensing.
``The Second Amendment does not guarantee an unregulated supply of cheap handguns to all,'' Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said in a telephone news conference.
Earlier this month, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre stirred up controversy by saying President Clinton was ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.''
Numerous federal appeals court decisions have upheld various gun-control laws against Second Amendment challenges.
The Supreme Court has ruled only once on the amendment's scope. It ruled in 1939 that there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of ``some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''
Last October, the nation's highest court declined to hear two appeals that sought to assert a personal and constitutionally protected right to own a gun.
But in April 1999, a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a protected individual right.
U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings dismissed charges against a man accused of violating a 1994 federal law that prohibits someone under a restraining order from owning a gun. A federal appeals court is expected to hear the government's appeal of that ruling in June.
During the news conference, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right. Just as people can be required to get drivers' licenses and register their cars, licensing and registration can be required for gun owners, he said
Joe
------------------
Joe's Second Amendment Message Board
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/nra03282000.htm
A group of law and history professors accused the National Rifle Association yesterday of misleading the public by suggesting that proposed gun-control laws would violate the Constitution.
In a letter to NRA President Charlton Heston, who is slated to speak at Brandeis University tonight, the 47 professors said the NRA's ``repeated suggestions that the Second Amendment somehow stands in the way of effective and reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership is a distortion of legal precedent and a disservice to all Americans.''
An NRA spokesman declined comment on the professors' letter.
The letter said the amendment ``plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations,'' including bans on certain types of weapons, requirements for safety devices and gun registration and licensing.
``The Second Amendment does not guarantee an unregulated supply of cheap handguns to all,'' Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said in a telephone news conference.
Earlier this month, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre stirred up controversy by saying President Clinton was ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.''
Numerous federal appeals court decisions have upheld various gun-control laws against Second Amendment challenges.
The Supreme Court has ruled only once on the amendment's scope. It ruled in 1939 that there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of ``some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''
Last October, the nation's highest court declined to hear two appeals that sought to assert a personal and constitutionally protected right to own a gun.
But in April 1999, a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a protected individual right.
U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings dismissed charges against a man accused of violating a 1994 federal law that prohibits someone under a restraining order from owning a gun. A federal appeals court is expected to hear the government's appeal of that ruling in June.
During the news conference, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right. Just as people can be required to get drivers' licenses and register their cars, licensing and registration can be required for gun owners, he said
Joe
------------------
Joe's Second Amendment Message Board