Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: − + + + + + + +
Essay:Medical Case Against Gun Control (view source)
Revision as of 04:11, January 25, 2008
, 04:11, January 25, 2008→Medical Arguments Against Gun Control: improved
The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Publish Health Association argues that:<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf (at p. 8)</ref>
The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Publish Health Association argues that:<ref>http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290acAmericanPublicHealthAssociation.pdf (at p. 8)</ref>
:While others address the legal standard that should govern this Court’s scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'', 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).
:While others address the legal standard that should govern this Court's scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'', 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).
In fact, empirical evidence virtually never used to interpret a constitutional provision, and was not used for that purpose in ''Brown v. Bd. of Educ.'' (expand). No credible theory of constitutional interpretation relies or utilizes empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can be cited for ''amending'' or changing the Constitution, not reinterpreting it. [[Judicial activism]] might rely on empirical evidence, but any method of interpretation that adheres to the text of the Constitution would not.
The group cites ''[[Day v. State]]'' for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the [[Second Amendment]] does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."
The group cites ''[[Day v. State]]'' for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the [[Second Amendment]] does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."
The ''amici curiae'' brief of the American Academy of Pediatricians makes a "for the children" argument for [[gun control]] and against an individual right to bear arms under the [[Second Amendment]]. It calls the ownership of guns a "contagion" and insists that "children cannot be taught gun safety."
But children are the victims of a disarmed or emasculated citizenry. (Expand further, citing increase in use of bladed weapons in England; genocide; foreign invasion)
== References ==
== References ==