Changes

In fact, empirical evidence is 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 on 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.

In fact, empirical evidence is 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 on 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.

APHA 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 APHA 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."

APHA concedes that defensive uses of guns are significant, and that some studies have shown that defensive uses of guns outnumber criminal uses.  But the APHA attempts to discredit those studies by questioning their methodology.  Notably absent from the AHPA's brief, however, is any recognition of the ''deterrent'' effect on crime of gun ownership.  The AHPA does even mention deterrence or deterrent once in its entire brief.  While that effect may be difficult to quantity, there is no denying its significance.

The APHA concedes that defensive uses of guns are significant, and that some studies have shown that defensive uses of guns outnumber criminal uses.  But the APHA attempts to discredit those studies by questioning their methodology.  Notably absent from the AHPA's brief, however, is any recognition of the ''deterrent'' effect on crime of gun ownership.  The AHPA does even mention deterrence or deterrent once in its entire brief.  While that effect may be difficult to quantity, there is no denying its significance.

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."

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."