Quote:
|
Cherminsky got at least one thing right---no federal court of appeals has found a ban on "assault weapons" unconstitutional.
|
Did he??
get that right, I mean??
Or has he just taken the lack of evidence as proof???
One of his points is the amount of time during which "no court" ruled gun control law(s) unconstitutional. The whole "from 1789 to 2008,," is a red herring (aka intentionally misleading).
He IMPLIES that in ALL THAT TIME, no court found gun control unconstitutional, because it isn't unconstitutional, and that compared to the bulk of time our "modern" view (2008, Heller, etc.) must be an aberation.
Reality is that, in all that time, there have been very, very few gun control laws taken to court, and considering the first national (Federal) gun control law was the 1934 NFA, its pretty obvious why there were no rulings on guncontrol between 1789 and 1934, there simply were no laws to be challenged.
Another point to consider is "ban". Most of the assault weapon laws are restrictions, not total bans on a complete class of firearm.
Even the 1934 NFA is not a ban. It is severe regulation and restriction, but it is not a complete and total ban on ownership of the covered items.
The DC law struck down in
Heller WAS a total ban of an entire class of arms (handguns), and that still took several decades to finally be ruled on.
Cherminsky may be a noted constitutional scholar, but if what he writes is the same drivel churned out by hack writers, then he's just a well educated hack writer...
