Cooley Law School (Part 2) – Episode #137

Thank you to everyone who e-mailed me about how much they enjoyed the first part of the symposium at Cooley Law School entitled “To Bear or Not to Bear: Guns in Educational Institutions.”. This is now the second part and I will be posting the final part as part of episode #138 in a week from this release date. The final part is actually the debate and I believe you will find It quite enjoyable no matter whether you’re for or against.

Remember to mark your calendars for September 23, 24th, and 25th 2011 for the 26th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference which will be held this year at the Hyatt Regency Chicago O’Hare Airport conference center.

Second Amendment Foundation has not yet posted registration on their website but please keep checking for one it is available.

In the last episode #136 the speakers were:

John Lott, visiting Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland College Park and author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition

James Manley, staff attorney with Mountain States Legal Foundation (argued on behalf of the state to challenge the University of Colorado’s ban on licensed concealed carry on campus).

John Johnson, Co-Director of the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus and former Director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (2000-2006).

In this episode the speakers were:

Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Steven Dulan, Attorney and Gun Law Professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

Dennis Henigan, Vice President for Law & Policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Director and Co-founder of its Legal Action Project.


Photos from the law school debate

Transcript of Part 2 (Word doc) (pdf)


2 thoughts on “Cooley Law School (Part 2) – Episode #137

  1. Dennis Henigan made my ears bleed; as does anyone else from the Brady Campaign.

    In an attempt to point out that not all attacks happen in gun free zones, Mr. Henigan was forced to use two attacks by lunatics 30 years apart (Reagan assassination and Tuscon shooting) and drug dealers attacking each other. On the other side of the coin we have the North Hollywood shootout, Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas, Xerox in Oahu Hawaii, several Post Offices, VT, Columbine, Trolley Square Mall in Utah (private land which forbid guns on the property), Ft. Hood (military personnel are not authorized to carry personal firearms and only on-duty Military Police are armed), and the list goes on and on and on. Furthermore, it’s not realistic to compare drug dealers, who live life by an entirely different set of rules and have zero expectation to live past the age of 25, and are fighting for something that they consider to be their livelihood (turf, “respect,” etc…) to someone who operates alone (North Hollywood and Columbine are exceptions to the norm) and is trying to make a point and PLANS to die in the process. Mass murderers aren’t looking to develop street cred or make more money, they simply want to die and have decided that they are going to take as many people as possible-who they see as responsible for their condition-with them.

    Of course, Mr. Henigan offers the perfectly benign solution to *just* limit the magazines to 10 rounds. I’m sure that the Brady Campaign will be more than happy to make every state “Shall Issue” with the only stipulation being 10-round magazines. Right. Going back to the question that we ALWAYS ask, how with this ban stop the criminals? Is the ban going to destroy every single magazine EVER created that holds more than 10 rounds? Of course not. It just means that the criminals will simply go out and purchase them on the black market. Furthermore, Mr. Henigan referenced the Assault Weapon Ban which lasted from ’94-’01. How did that affect the crime rate across the country…?

    The other point that the Brady people constantly miss (or dismiss) is that the 2nd Amendment is PRIMARILY about defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. If the military has access to 30, 60, 100 round magazines and belt-fed machine guns; suppressors; and purpose-built weapons such as short-barreled or .50 BMG rifles then how are we to be expected to defend ourselves with featureless rifles (ala California) and 10-round magazines?

    – Alex

  2. Mark, Thanks for recording and posting this debate. We do not hear the other side’s arguments from its “best” advocates. Regardless of position we hold, Horwitz, Johnson and Hennigan are on the first team for the anti’s (not commenting on how good they are vis-a-vis our side, just that they are the best the anti’s offer), and we rarely or never hear them by listening to the GRRN only. I would have liked to hear a few hours of give and take with each side questioning and answering the other.

    Thanks again, Mark, for all you do. gary

Leave a Comment