“Expert” Jacob D. Charles On Assault Weapons
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 2 months ago
Charles’s Duke biography states he joined the Center for Firearms Law as executive director after practicing in the appellate group at McGuireWoods LLP, where he briefed cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits as well as in numerous state intermediate and high courts.
“I am here to convince you that an assault weapons ban would not violate the Second Amendment,” Charles said. “This is a fraught and contentious debate, and the people and their representatives — not lawyers in robes — should be the ones to decide whether an assault weapon ban best serves the public interest.”
Charles gave three reasons as to why an assault weapon ban would not violate the Second Amendment: history does not support the right to own an assault weapon, current constitutional doctrine does not impede an assault weapons ban and there are no good normative reasons to suppose that there is a constitutional right to own assault weapons.
In the title of the article, he’s called a “firearms expert.” Very well, Jacob. Can you supply us with a lecture on the controlling mathematical models and formulae for ballistics coefficient and sectional density?
I didn’t think so. Some expert.
Note how in a speech on the constitutionality, he defers to the will of the people rather than whether ownership of weapons is constitutional. This isn’t by mistake. His philosophy is one of instrumentalism (Dewey), utilitarianism (Mills), or something else, but he would recoil in horror is you suggested that we pass a law that requires sacrificing someone named Jacob to Baal on alternating Thursdays. So Jacob is an inconsistent philosopher at best, or perhaps he’s never really thought about any of this.
But his main arguments are all deeply flawed. His training has all been without philosophical foundation, and thus he would defer to the rule of the majority for notion of rights rather than immutable law.
As we’ve discussed many times before, God is the author of rights and obligations, and the Almighty decides how to deal with His creatures and how they must live. The constitution is a covenant between men, not a source document for rights. Obedience to the covenant brings blessings and peace, while disobedience brings curses, both from men and God. Just as God will never bless a spouse who cheats on covenant marriage vows, He will never bless a stiff-necked people who refuse to honor agreements they have made to live together.
The constitution clearly stipulates not that we may posses firearms of our own choosing, but rather that the government may not interfere with our choices. As for that silly, juvenile notion that history doesn’t support this (e.g., the founders couldn’t possibly have imagined semi-automatic firepower), we’ve also seen how clearly incorrect that is.
We’ve also studied the obligations that the Almighty places on us for protection of home and hearth. Little more needs to be said, because while feigning independence and scholarship, one thing is clear. The Duke University Center for Firearms Law is biased, bigoted and certainly not scholarly.
These folks will never be Dave Hardy, Dave Koppel or Stephen Halbrook. They’ll always play second fiddle to the real scholars.
Oh, one more thing, Jacob. I’ll be happy to engage in a written debate with you any time over these pages.
On October 3, 2019 at 7:35 am, Heywood said:
As much as I would love to see/read a debate between the two of you, we both know that the “elite” or “experts” don’t want debate. They rely on the stupidity of the majority of publicly indoctrinated drones to fall for their packaged, scripted and highly manipulative wording to sway the masses and their Twitter intellect (144 character knowledge).
On October 3, 2019 at 9:03 am, revjen45 said:
“Can you supply us with a lecture on “the controlling mathematical models and formulae for ballistics coefficient and sectional density?”
WOW!! I have a degree in Professional Gunsmithing and I can’t do that!
But then I’m not claiming to be a “firearms expert” (whatever that is).
P.S.: While I can’t hold forth on “the controlling mathematical models and formulae for ballistics coefficient and sectional density” I do understand what they are and how they affect trajectory and terminal ballistic performance. But, again, I don’t claim to be a “firearms expert” (whatever that is).
On October 3, 2019 at 11:24 am, MTHead said:
And I just read Joe Biden plans to use Donald Trump’s NFA bumpstock trick on assault weapons!
I think the wording was, Plans to regulate existing assault weapons through the National Firearms Act.
Hey guys, we don’t need that Duke U. guy anymore!
Don’t need congress anymore either! Just some lowlife at the ATF to say your AR is a “machine gun”. ( I believe their prosecuting their first bumpstock is a machine gun case as I write.)
Thanks Don!
On October 3, 2019 at 12:36 pm, Fred said:
But @MTHead, he’s making the Wahhabi and Zionist cults great again!
On October 4, 2019 at 11:09 am, scott s. said:
I assume Clark’s expertise is in the history of firearms law, at least from an England/US POV.
A general problem of practitioners, including experts, is inability to extrapolate from practice to philosophy. We see the same thing in “science” where practitioners in a particular branch of philosophy (Baconian science) assume that no other natural philosophy can exist.
I suppose it must follow that in a constitutional republic, the constitution must reflect the “will of the people”. But at least one problem the founders grappled with was reconciling deeper philosophical questions with this understanding. The BOR is incorporated into the constitution (logically, there isn’t any way for a constitution to reference a “higher law”) but clearly the intent is to assert that the “rights” are not subject to the will of constitutions. And hence practitioners have difficulty in dealing with “rights”.
On October 4, 2019 at 11:24 am, revjen45 said:
“This is a fraught and contentious debate, and the people and their representatives — not lawyers in robes — should be the ones to decide whether an assault weapon ban best serves the public interest.”
Hmmm – they weren’t too hot on The People deciding on gay marriage, right to Buggery and Felching, Right to Live and Shit in the Street, Right to shower with your wives and daughters, Eight to Murder the Unborn, etc. Judicial Fiat was just fine for the rights they approve of.
On October 4, 2019 at 5:14 pm, willford said:
Sorry BUT, this guy sounds like another IMPROMPTU JACKASS, IMO. You know doesn’t know his ASS from a whole in the ground?
On October 9, 2019 at 11:41 pm, streamfortyseven said:
The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of certain pre-existing rights, which serve as limitations on what Congress, and the constituent states, may enact in the way of legislation. The word “arms” in the Second Amendment specifically refers to military weaponry, equal to what any standing army might possess. This includes tanks, 155mm howitzers, rocket-propelled grenades, full-auto crew-served machine guns, M-16 select fire rifles, and so on. Jefferson donated three two-inch bore cannon, with shot and powder, to the militia group in his area. This meant, of course, that he *possessed* them before 1775. He – and the other Anti-Federalists – would have viewed subsequent laws restricting certain classes of arms to a standing army, to be a gross affront and infringement of essential liberties – not to mention the *existence* of a standing army and select militias (now known as “police” or “law enforcement”). The research supporting my opinion has been done by Lott, Kopel, and other competent historians, so there should be no need to split hairs on what degree of infringement should be tolerated.