Quote of the day—Frank Easterbrook

If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.

Frank Easterbrook
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
April 27, 2015
BREAKING: Bans on “Assault Weapons,” Firearm Magazines Can Be Based on Feelings, Rules Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
[So does that mean if people feel safer if all blacks are kept as slaves would it make slavery constitutional?

Of course not. But by Easterbrook’s “logic” it would seem so.

I would feel safer if Easterbrook were to lose his job as a judge and spend the rest of his life scrubbing toilets.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Frank Easterbrook

  1. Even if his “logic” made sense, it’s based on a foundation of quicksand. Who will decide the proper level of perceived risk and then measure and decide whether it has been reduced? Who will decide what metric to use to measure “feeling safer” and who will measure that?

    This is just the same old liberal idea of assuming the intent. They claim the law does these things so it must. Any other outcome is inconceivable.

    • That quicksand foundation is exactly the intent. It’s called the “living constitution” — meaning: the law is whatever I feel like it should be today.
      It ties into the notion, as taught in schools in recent years, that truth is a matter of opinion.

    • The law allows shop owners to keep guns on their property, so what is the problem?

      • Walking down the street would appear to be a problem.

        So, if you could keep books, newspapers, magazines, etc. on private property but not be seen in public with them you wouldn’t see a First Amendment issue?

        Or are you just trolling again?

        • Why would shop owners want to leave their shops and walk down the street? It seems to me, they would want to protect their shops. You think they should be out there patrolling or something?

          • Well, they might want to go home at the end of the work day. And they might want to feel safe (and be safe) while doing so.

  2. There are various levels of legal scrutiny applied by judges in ruling on cases. For the most part, rulings on Constitutional issues are supposed to be held to “strict scrutiny” – meaning that there has to a be a significant benefit to society from infringing a right. “Feeling good” does not rise to that level of scrutiny, so I can only assume that Judge Easterbrook applied a lesser level, one which I would call “screwtiny.”

    • “Strict scrutiny” is a scam. There is no scrutiny, strict or otherwise, anywhere to be found in the Constitution.
      “Strict scrutiny” is an unconstitutional notion that basically means “we can disregard the Constitution if we can come up with a sufficiently plausible sounding argument”. (Contrast with lower levels of scrutiny, which change that to “…if we can come up with any sort of not completely ridiculous argument”.)
      But that’s not what the Constitution says. It does not say “may be infringed if you can come up with a good argument”. It says “shall not be infringed”.

  3. Until Francis can come up with something more concrete than “feelings” and “perceptions”, I’m not interested in any law that he weighs in on.

    Which you can take to mean that I feel he has no standing or jurisdiction over me. You want to facilitate a breakdown in the regard for “the law”, follow Francis and the rest of the babbling trolls like him.

  4. Kind of like cowering under the school desk in preparation for a thermonuclear blast, a false sense of security is no security at all. Safety cannot be attained by placebo.

Comments are closed.