Planning a relaxing summer weekend, a road trip, or some time at the bach? If you haven't already listened, why not take Professors Epstein and Yoo along with you?
This week on Law Talk with Epstein and Yoo, an in-depth discussion (expertly moderated by host Troy Senik) about gun control laws, the 2nd amendment, militias, and what the law can do --if anything-- to stop mass killings. In addition, Professors Yoo and Epstein discuss their views on assault weapons and easy access to ammo. Agree? Disagree? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. Later, the international implications of gun control with a look at the UN treaty on arms trading, and we wrap up with the debut of a new feature: the Law Talk Lightning Round™.
Ricochet members, you can enjoy your constitutionally guaranteed right of listening to this show anywhere you want by subscribing (and get the direct link to the show). Not a Ricochet member? It's the law -- Join today!
Thanks to ShutterStock for the image.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Hey, the point of the 2nd amendment is to allow us to exercise our first amendment rights. The gov't should be afraid of the people, these weapons make them afraid.
Oct '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
I know you're only joking, but you can only use the ® symbol after issue of a trademark registration. You can use the ™ symbol if you're claiming a trademark without or prior to a registration. (IANYL etc.) See also this...*
* Don't worry.
Jun '12
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Yea, I was a bit suprised at the lukewarm support for 2nd ammendment individual rights by the esteemed Epstein and Yoo. Question: what State has ever had to guarantee itself the right to bear arms? Even in the context of individual states' relationships with the federal government this seems to be silly. And what about the argument that the People *are* the "militia"? Logic goes as follows: states need a milita -> militia needs armed people -> those people are the citizens of the state -> no federal intrusion on the individual right of people to bear arms *because* they can all become members of the milita.
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
genferei
I know you're only joking, but you can only use the ® symbol after issue of a trademark registration. You can use the ™ symbol if you're claiming a trademark without or prior to a registration. (IANYL etc.) See also this...*
* Don't worry. · 8 minutes ago
It was meant as a joke. I'll change it to ™ though. Wouldn't want to get the law professors into any trouble.
May '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Where I part ways with Professor Epstein...
Jul '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Gentlemen;
While I can't argue the fine points of the wording of the constitution, what ought to be pretty obvious is that at the time of the writing most Americans considered militia local gatherings of citizens, separate from the raising of troops - whether by state or feds. These militias were required to arm themselves and keep a specified amount of ammunition readily available.
Furthermore, pretty much ALL Americans of the era simply assumed every man had the right to be armed and defend himself and his family whenever the need arose.
That seems to make the argument of militia vs national guard rather moot.
May '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
You also have the Jeffersonian argument that governments are instituted among men and that the people have a right to alter or abolish it. Hard to abolish it without guns. (Unless you have the patience of a Democrat and let it play out over 70 or 80 years.)
Dec '11
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
I never before caught the distinction between cruel & unusual punishment and cruel & unusual punishments. It makes a huge difference, doesn't it. And I'm especially grateful for the buzzer in the Lightning Round. I almost fell on the floor laughing when Prof. Epstein got cut off mid-sentence!
Dec '11
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
I wish these two were on the Supreme Court.
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
The all-time best quote on which is John's, on a Supreme Court where all nine justices were Richard Epstein: "All of the decisions would still be 5-4."
Apr '11
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Great Podcast. I'm happy John gave the head's up that he was speaking in New York. Very interesting stuff on his new book.
May '12
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Troy Senik, Ed.
The all-time best quote on which is John's, on a Supreme Court where all nine justices were Richard Epstein: "All of the decisions would still be 5-4." · Jul 25 at 11:19pm
I pull that one out and chuckle over it from time to time.
But, why are you trying to limit Richard Epstein's response time? Are you daft? He should be given a buzzer if he fails to respond in less* than a minute; the man's a living, breathing law course and each podacst is equivalent to a semesters' worth of lectures. At current tutition rates you should be charging $30K per episode.
Wait... what am I saying?
*oops, got confused there. Meant: 'fails to respond in more than a minute'
Edited on July 28, 2012 at 10:35pmMay '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
If Professors Epstein and Yoo spent a little more time outside the leafy groves of academe, and the genteel surrounds of their respective faculty drawing rooms, they might be better able to visualize a situation where a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine, let alone a handgun of any description, would posess great utility. Two examples:
NB Prof Epstein, the benefit of a shotgun is your aim doesn't have to be that good.
Dec '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
The important Treaty discussion seems to completely avoid the important point, at least as far as I am aware. The parlor discussion about treaties, their effects, and the theoretical backstop of senate confirmation, may be irrelevant. This effort on the part of Clinton and Obama is important to them. Why?
What matters to people questioning this, specific, negotiation, is that it is being purported to being added to the existing Geneva Accords. The purportion is that this deal, if signed by Obama and Clinton, but not taken up by the senate, which Reid has indicated will not occur, will take the effect of law in this country.
What I have read indicates that in this particular case, it's not about the specifics, but about how it is written and appended to an existing agreement.
This aspect, not addressed by professors Yoo and Epstein, means that the entire discussion misses what is bothering the people that are waving their hands and saying, "Hey! There's a problem, over here."
Is there? We'll never know.
Some seem to think there is a senate backstop. Detractors say there is none.
Please comment.
Jun '11
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
A respectful thumbs down on the Lightning Round. I'd rather hear the Dynamic Duo expound on a subject than get cut off arbitrarily. Especially when Richard is just getting into the nitty-gritty of Roman riparian rights.
Sep '11
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Can't wait to hear the podcast, but what is it with the sleeveless shirts? Oh, bear arms! Never mind.
Edited on July 28, 2012 at 11:43pmFeb '12
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
EJHill: Where I part ways with Professor Epstein... · Jul 24 at 2:10pm
Edited on Jul 24 at 2:41pm
Does it annoy anyone that the "ability to hunt" is tolerated as part of a 2nd amendment discussion? I tend to observe its deployment as distraction, an attempt to molify criticism by those opposed to the right to carry for defense.
Jun '12
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
I seem to have listened to this when it was first posted on the 24th, being new around here, why was this reposted today? Edited? Status change? Moved to free page? I thought it was a new podcast, but it seems to be the same one posted on the 24th
Very interesting discussion, though I personally believe in individual right to bear arms and militia phrase only was an example of why the individual right was necessary. Also from discussion I read/heard elsewhere but forget exactly where, one critical point, is that right preexists constitution, and the second ammendment only guarantees the right from interference by the government, but does not itself grant the right, the view being that the government does NOT have the authority to remove the right, although through physical force could have that effect.
Jun '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
I find it way too confusing to listen to Bach and a Richard Epstein exposition at the same time.
May '10
Re: The Right To Bear Arms
Meet up?