mauserme Posted December 1, 2020 at 12:28 PM Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 12:28 PM It would have been better if this had been publicized earlier than last night:https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/30/firearms-litigation-liability-regulation-and-the-constitution/ SECOND AMENDMENT LITIGATIONFirearms Litigation: Liability, Regulation, and the ConstitutionFree CLE program on Dec. 1DAVID KOPEL | 11.30.2020 10:44 PMOn Tuesday, December 1, there is free four-hour continuing legal education program on "Firearms Litigation: Liability, Regulation, and the Constitution." The program is co-sponsored by the Center on Civil Justice at NYU School of Law, the Duke Center for Firearms Law, and the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School. It will run from 1 to 5 p.m., Eastern Time. Free registration is available here. The event will be transmitted via Zoom.Panel 1 is "Liability Litigation: Products, Preemption, and the PLCAA." The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a 2005 federal statute that bans many tort lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and retailers. The PLCAA does not restrict lawsuits about firearms that are actually defective–for example, a handgun that fires when it is accidentally dropped....Panel 2 is Constitutional Litigation. This panel will be wide-ranging. The moderator is Adam Skaggs (Giffords). In addition to me, panelists will be: Joseph Blocher (Duke) ... Bob Cottrol (George Washington) ... Mary Anne Franks (Miami) ... Deepak Gupta (Gupta Wessler) ... David Kopel (U. of Denver, Independence Inst., Cato Inst.)...Panel 3: The Future of Litigation StrategiesModerated by Darrell Miller (Duke), this panel examines litigation strategy and practice, as well as statutory reforms affecting litigation–perhaps including the long-running effort to get rid of PLCAA or eviscerate it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 1, 2020 at 06:09 PM Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 06:09 PM The meeting is underway. I'll try to post highlights but it's been very busy at work today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 1, 2020 at 07:02 PM Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 07:02 PM Well, this is definitely not what I expected. Both sides are being presented with an emphasis on gun control, which makes at least some sense given that this is a continuing education symposium for the legal profession. Understanding their anti-gun arguments can be useful to us, but this is a disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted December 1, 2020 at 07:06 PM Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 07:06 PM They are comparing the Firearms industry to the tobacco industry, and cigarette smoking deaths to firearms. Leftist extremists. These "attorneys" clearly don't understand the shortest and simplest of the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 1, 2020 at 07:27 PM Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 07:27 PM They are comparing the Firearms industry to the tobacco industry, and cigarette smoking deaths to firearms. Leftist extremists. These "attorneys" clearly don't understand the shortest and simplest of the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. And maybe this is why David Kopel wanted it publicized, more than the organizers seem to have wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 1, 2020 at 08:04 PM Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 08:04 PM An actual reasonable statement by Robert Cottrol - things like pistol grips and bayonet lugs are doodads. They don't effect the function of the weapon. The US government sold M1 carbines with those features to the general public in the 1960's. An actual reasonable question by Robert Cottrol - should we ban knives because the military issues bayonets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 1, 2020 at 08:30 PM Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 08:30 PM The basic problem with the anti-gun arguments being presented is that they don't understand the Constitution enshrines negative rights - things that the government may not do to its citizens. The anti-gun folks speak, for example, in terms of the creation of a right to feel safe that can be balanced between how a gun owner feels safe versus how a non-gun owner feels safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benbow Posted December 1, 2020 at 10:12 PM Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 10:12 PM that was a real yawn, but thanks for the heads up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted December 1, 2020 at 11:41 PM Share Posted December 1, 2020 at 11:41 PM The basic problem with the anti-gun arguments being presented is that they don't understand the Constitution enshrines negative rights - things that the government may not do to its citizens. The anti-gun folks speak, for example, in terms of the creation of a right to feel safe that can be balanced between how a gun owner feels safe versus how a non-gun owner feels safe.I think they're just selective. They're usually right on top of unlawful searches and seizures. Then again, to keep them consistent, maybe Trump could force them to billet some troops in their homes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.