The National Law Journal
September 17, 2012
6. September 19, 2012 09:52 AM
Erwin sounds much like a five year old on a tricycle attempting to give advice to NASCAR racers about winning race strategy. He is living proof that lawyers speaking outside their area of expertise are nothing more than hacks using their reputation in one field to buffalo people about something entirely different.
Read http://jack-burton.hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not and in five minutes you'll know more about so called assault weapons than the author has learned in a lifetime.
— jack burton
7. September 19, 2012 08:17 AM
The better ban would be on liberals teaching in law schools! They do a lot more damage to the national fabric than assault weapons.
8. September 17, 2012 09:44 AM
Dean Chemerinsky again proves himself to be among the most irrelevant people in American law. All-but-bankrupt California needed to fund one more law school for the dean to run like it needs another major earthquake. Then again, if that next earhtquake happens to swallow up the dean and his white elephant school of law at UC Irvine, maybe the once Golden State could begin to regain some of its lost luster.
— Darren McKinney
9. September 17, 2012 09:04 AM
Hundreds of thousands of so-called "assault rifles" are owned by law-abiding Americans. Is it logical to believe that those people own and use those rifles for no purpose except to kill others? In reality, those rifles are widely used for shooting targets, and, yes, for hunting. That a handful of crazies create tragedies, doesn't justify banning something that is safely and legally used by hundreds of thousands and even millions of people. Ill advised people render ill advised opinions.
10. September 16, 2012 03:39 PM
My god is this a press release from the Brady group?
Doesn't anyone at law.com do fact checking before you print anything?
This is the worst gun control article I have ever seen. It is full of factual errors.
All in all the author should retract this article because of the many factual errors.
He clearly knows nothing about guns. The article is SLANDER against the guns, Makers and owners and should not be on this website.
The assault gun ban was a cosmetic ban only it was impossible for it to have any effect and if someone says it did that's a clear giveaway that the author is not telling the truth. FBI statistics even prove it.
The assault gun ban banned Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally).
So makers just removed all but 1 of the items from the list and kept selling them. Mostly they just sawed off the Bayonet mount and they became legal to sell. Perhaps the author can explain how that affected crime in any way.
"t is outrageous that a product that exists for no purpose other than to kill has an exemption from state tort liability."
I have seen that statement before it was copied from pro gun control literature however it is untrue. These guns are used for sports and self defence they are also used for hunting.
"Semi-automatic weapons — such as the Uzi, the TEC-9, some AK-47s and the Colt AR-15 — have the capacity to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time. In fact, they have no other purpose. Semi-automatic weapons are not used to hunt; they would obliterate the animal. They exist to fire multiple bullets in quick succession, a function that is useful only in war."
This paragraph also appears to have been copied since I have seen it before. It is also a blatant lie.
1 Semi-automatic weapons are used by hunters.
2 Assault guns are identical to hunting riffles they only look like military guns they do not shoot faster than hunting rifles and are not more powerful. In fact they use a smaller bullet than most hunting riffles. The truth is that hunting riffles fire at the same speed and are more powerful than Assault Guns.
3 Assault guns do not obliterate the animal in fact because of the smaller bullet many hunters prefer the more powerful hunting riffles.
These guns a perfect home defence guns because just the look of them scares away people.
We have enough literature online now that no one should be repeating these lies anymore. I must assume that anyone who still does is part of the disarmament movement . Gun control Kills.