Pro-gun scholar Dave Kopel's email account possibly hacked

[MDJschool]

Dave Kopel is a pro-gun scholar who surely knows of the 1822 Kentucky Bliss case as well as the 1903 Vermont Rosenthal case, as they deal with the absolute right to bear arms, as well as that Pa. did not have its first state statute regulating carry of weapons until 1850 -- and that not for 163 years has anyone fixed this constitutional infirmity.

Upon being notified of the result in Com. v. McKown, and apprised of the article by the NRA-ILA, which mostly avoided denigrating the appellant and focused on what the NRA called 'judicial activism' related to licensure, Dave Kopel appeared to respond with the following:

"If I'd written the article, I certainly would have denigrated the defendant-appellant. What a reckless and destructive twit."

It would be hard to believe those were of the same person Guns.com talked to earlier this year. S.H. Blannelberry had noted "This cuts to the core of the battle over gun rights and gun ownership. One side believes that as a free people we should decide how we want to protect our homes, our families and ourselves. The other side believes that decision should be made for us by government elites. It’s rather evident which side Prof. Kopel is on."

Does Prof. David Kopel also think that Bliss and Rosenthal were reckless, destructive twits? Or do their end accomplishments justify the means they used to get there: arrest, conviction, and appeal?

It could not possibly be a Kopel who said “The original public meaning of the Second Amendment was safeguarding the natural right to own and carry arms for all legitimate purposes,” said Kopel. “The difference between self defense against a criminal invader in the home or against a criminal tyrant with a standing army was only one of scale.”

Maybe I'm just wrong and it is Dave Kopel. After all, a sweeping generalization about constitutionality of concealed carry statute and his ever brief treatments of Bliss v. Commonwealth suggest that Dave Kopel is quite comfortable with some but not all governmental meddling of our right to bear arms. "The GOA position is consistent with the first gun rights case decided in the United States, Bliss v. Commonwealth.(733) But the jurisprudence of the nineteenth century from then onward is on the other side. The weight of nineteenth century precedent would allow severe restrictions or perhaps even a complete prohibition on concealed carry. Consequently, a fairly administered licensing system would pose no constitutional problem under the main line of nineteenth century cases."

Dave Kopel is a contributor on Volokh.com which covers gun rights news (although now only a plurality of its contributions). It certainly has covered less-than-state-supreme-court results. If Dave would like to 'tell us how he really feels' about constitutional carry and those persons whom ask courts to uphold their constitutions, he should do it at Volokh.com for the world to see so that we are no longer confused about his tendencies.

[MDJschool]

When Adam Winkler and Dave Kopel can be thrown into the same bin by Dave's acknowledgement, I guess I was just wrong. It was not only wrong but it was also libelous to claim that Davel Kopel is a 'pro-gun scholar'. Davel Kopel is a pro-prior-restraint scholar if http://therepartee.com/winkler-kopel-one/ is to be believed to be his real words.

If more people approached gun policy the way Adam Winkler does, we could make a lot of progress towards better gun policies. Adam’s essential insight, which is very well presented in his book, is that gun rights and gun control have always been part of American gun policy. The Second Amendment accommodates both of them.

To elaborate Adam’s insight, I’d say that the constitutionally legitimate gun control laws are the ones which actually improve public safety by keeping guns out of the wrong hands. The illegitimate gun control laws are the ones that infringe the rights of the law-abiding, especially the right of self-defense.

A good example of laws which successfully integrate gun rights and gun control are the “Shall Issue” laws for handgun carry licensing in most states. Those laws provide a fair and objective process for law-abiding citizens to be issued permits to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection. The laws have controls such as background checks (which are typically much more extensive than for simply purchasing a gun) and safety training. The laws also protect the right to bear arms, by ensuring that licensing officials do not deny applications simply because the issuing official does not like the idea of people carrying guns.

As to Adam’s question about background checks on private sales: if anybody actually proposed this, it would probably pass, with overwhelming political support. The reason it hasn’t been enacted in most places is that the bills which are actually introduced are bait-and-switch.

I am sorry, everyone, that I at any time claimed Dave Kopel might be pro-gun. Whether he is that personally or not, I cannot know. But his scholardom and personal appearances to that point allow us to group him with anti-gun organizations and Adam Winkler. Maybe his email account wasn't hacked at all.

[MDJschool]

It should be finally said that over Dave Kopel's vast scholarship, much of it is effective help to vindicate pro-gun positions.

Well, except where he comes out and says something like "So a federal court in, say, Kansas or Pennsylvania, should not strike down that state’s concealed carry licensing system, on the grounds that the Second Amendment requires the ability to carry without a permit."
or
"The Great American Gun Control War lasted nearly a century, and the greatest national battles of all were fought in the last quarter of the twentieth century. The results of that War are settled, and obvious: First, gun rights are no more “absolute” than are any other rights. Second, the most unconstitutional laws on guns are the laws which attempt to deprive law-abiding Americans of their right of armed self- defense, and their choice of a proper firearm with which to exercise the right, or which attempt to limit self-defense solely to the home."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2070925

I guess if a scholar doesn't appear to take these kind of positions through a sort of vagueness (is he simply reporting a conclusion by courts or history, or is he taking one step beyond what is done and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy himself?), he might be less likely to get published, might be more likely to be ostracized by a scholarly community, and might be less likely to enjoy his art or making a living because of it.

After all, the Middle District of Pennsylvania or the Third Circuit might have declared concealed carry license statute unconstitutional under the 2A had they not read that famed kinda-pro-gun-looking scholar Kopel said it should not be so. That's exactly how they will read that very sentence even if the paragraph is simply Dave opining on history and what the courts themselves might conclude on their own should they follow it (rather than follow the law.)