Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Bill and Melinda Gates give $50,000 to gun control group | Main | The politics of this should get interesting.... »

Events at U Conn Law

Posted by David Hardy · 15 November 2013 09:41 PM

It was an all-day seminar, and I think a very good one. Too tired now to say much more, but a high point came when Clayton Cramer and others pinned Richard Aborn, former head of Brady Campaign. He had insisted that he and they were never for banning handguns, that was a canard put out by NRA to scare the average gun owner, they were perfectly comfortable with law-abiding people owning handguns (so long as they registered them). Oh, and they did want to ban "assault rifles."

The pin was: how can you be in favor of banning "assault rifles," which are involved in a fraction of one percent of homicides, and not really be in favor of banning handguns, which are involved in about 50% of them? No answer was forthcoming, but only evasion.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Eric | November 16, 2013 8:22 AM | Reply

"...(so long as they registered them)."

Further evidence they wanted to ban handguns, since there is only one serious reason for registering firearms. Just ask all the people in California who registered their legal "assault weapons" under penalty of law, only to have the State decide a few months later that "hey, those are really illegal after all."

Critic | November 19, 2013 6:13 PM | Reply

So did Aborn support or oppose the DC and Chicago handgun bans?

Obama returned a position paper that stated he wanted to ban handguns, then later claimed that his assistant mistakenly filled it in incorrectly. But then we have him on video in support of the D.C. handgun ban (see "Obama Flip Flops on D.C. Gun Ban" at Youtube)

Leave a comment