TexasCHLforum.com

KC5AV wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Winkler's response to my letter:

And his response to that:

The analogy to the stop sign is perfect. We impose them on everyone, even responsible people who would be careful when traversing an intersection. Sometimes prophylactic rules work best. Not perfectly, just better.

When a man's mind is made up, you can't change it.

At least he's willing to dialog, even if it's simply to ridicule my positions.

And he did a not very good job of totally evading the question. Keep pressing him.

On 2/15/13 10:20 AM, "Winkler, Adam" <winkler@law.ucla.edu> wrote:
Well, if sophisticated reasoning is simply to insist on harsher penalties (which we keep making harsher to no real effect) and to decry every proposal as an "infringement" of the 2A (completely divorced from any case law supporting such a cry), then I guess I'll go with stunningly naïve!

The reason harsh penalties have no effect is because we ignore them. When criminals can receive two years for a murder (and out in 13 months), then harsh penalties are nothing more than cover for a system that is being ignored.

Seriously, though, why do you think punishing law abiding citizens will have an effect on gun crime if you think harsh penalties for the actual criminals will not? Isn't this a clear example of twisted reasoning?

For example, let's say that some drivers are completely ignoring stop signs, causing accidents and even fatalities. Would it make sense to insist that every car have a mechanism that could detect a stop sign and stop the car regardless of what the driver wanted or needed? Or does it make sense to have harsh enough penalties for law breakers that the cost of breaking the law is more than they are willing to pay?

The problem is law breakers, not the law abiding. That is the problem that needs to be tackled.

The analogy to the stop sign is perfect. We impose them on everyone, even responsible people who would be careful when traversing an intersection. Sometimes prophylactic rules work best. Not perfectly, just better.

Adam, I find this kind of thinking from a law professor to be stunningly naïve.

Let's say you manage to get truly universal background checks passed through Congress. Now imagine the very scenario you describe as the reason they are needed. A criminal wants to obtain a gun through a friend or family member. How are you going to stop that with the universal background checks? All the friend or family member has to do is report the gun as stolen and poof, your chain of custody is gone.

Gee, I was robbed on the way home from the FFL.

Your proposal to make them free is a tax on gun dealers. If you truly want free universal background checks, then the government would have to reimburse the FFL for the transfer. Otherwise you're simply shifting the cost burden from the government to private companies, and I doubt seriously you could get that past the Supreme Court. You are familiar with Prinz I'm sure. Would that principle not apply even more to compelling a private party to bear the cost burden of carrying out the government mandate?

You, along with so many other people in this country, seem to have no concept of the word "infringed". We have tons of gun laws on the books now, few of which are enforced with regularity or consistency. When they are, the penalties are not nearly severe enough. Now you want to burden the law abiding citizen with additional hoops to go through in the vain hope that somehow, some way, this will make the criminals less likely to obtain firearms?

If you were really serious about stopping criminal use of firearms, you'd be demanding mandatory sentences for the use of a gun in a felony.

10 years with no parole for the first offense
20 years with no parole for the second offense
Life without parole for a third offense
No judicial discretion.

My advice? Stop attacking guns. Attack criminals.