By Ronald W. Pies, MD
“Similarly, even if we could not demonstrate that laws banning production and private ownership of rapid-fire, semi-automatic weapons actually reduced mass shootings, a civilized society would still have sound ethical reasons for retaining these laws. That is, these laws legitimately reflect society’s value judgment that no good will come from the possession of such destructive weapons by private citizens–and that much harm may ensue.” (bolding mine)
I think not. I’m certainly no great legal scholar but I have a basic theory of what I feel constitutes the basis of normative jurisprudence is, and it doesn’t include passing a law to make a statement about ethical or moral judgments; it’s about defining what is considered criminal behavior and setting out punishments. End. Of. Story.
No legal positivism allowed, thankyouverymuch. I won’t get into fisking the whole article as I’m sure someone more talented and knowledgeable has probably beaten me to it (and if not, one of you get on that please *g*).