i will be very quick to alan gura and nelson lund. do you think a ban on magazines that would limit that the three magazines to 10 rounds is constitutional? >> i hate to give quick questions -- quick answers to those questions because i think in need to do a careful legal analysis before you decide these kind of questions that the margin. i think it is very dubious in part because such bans on high- capacity magazines are so sick leave in terms of any type of reasonable prospect -- are so silly in terms of any type of reasonable prospect. >> the legal analysis would go something like this, after heller, if you are looking at a lot better dresses magazine capacity, the question then becomes whether or not a gun with this type of magazine is an arm that people would expect to find in common use for traditional lawful purposes. that is the common test. the question is not to whether the bad guy can use it. the per furred what come -- the preferred weapon of criminals as a handgun. the question is not whether the thing could be misused, t

please welcome professor nelson lund. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much, roger. it's an honor to be here. my talk is going to be academic. i'll try not to go over my time by too long, though. after the heller decision was announce the, there was a lot of celebrating my gun rights advocates and by proponents of the interpretive theory. that was understandable. heller was the first significant victory for gun rights in the history of supreme court, and the majority opinion is still to the brim with the rhetoric of originalism and with detailed historicallism. i just wish it were all true. i'm afraid this reminds me a little bit of the celebrations of the courts commerce clause decisions in lopez and morrison. heller was an important test case. there was virtually no supreme court precedences, certainly none that could be considered dispositive, and originalism, because the second amendment poses genuine puzzles. it's text combines the preface and command. what it says is a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of free state, the right of the people

please welcome professor nelson lund. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, roger. it's an honor to be here. my talk is going to be a little academic. i'll try not to go over my time limit by too long, though. after the heller decision was announced, there was a lot of celebrating by gun rights advocates, and by proponents of the interpre tiff theory of realism. that was understandable. heller was the first significant victory for gun rights in the history of the supreme court. and the majority opinion is filled to the brim with the rhetoric of originalism and detail to historical senses. i just wish it were all true. but i'm afraid this reminds me of a little bit of the celebrations of the court's commerce clause decisions in lopez and morrison. heller was an important test case for the interpretive theory. there was no supreme court precedence, certainly none that could be considered dispositive. this was also a good test case for originalism, because the send amendment poses some genuine puzzles. its text uniquely explains a command. what it says is a well regula

nelson or the state's attorney adrian lund wanted to do something but there was nothing we could do untilwere waiting all those years for something to happen. and something that could help us. and i know that seems so sick to really think about it, but we knew -- we hoped it would stop or something would happen or we could actually get it stopped. >> what really strikes me about that is in all the training and the work that we do at the stalking resource center, your experiences, hannah, are all too common for a lot of people who experience stalking. but sometimes there is an event like an assault that occurs or there could be dating violence or intimate partner violence or sometimes a sexual assault and then that perpetrator continues to terrorize the person by engaging in these sorts of behaviors the following the threats and to continue, to further the perpetration of the crime to keep the victim fearful. sometimes it also happens that before anything worse even happens, there will be these stalking behaviors. what's unfortunate is that oftentimes there are a lot of people like all of

please welcome professor nelson lund. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, roger. it's an honor to be here. my talk is going to be a little after the heller decision was announced, there was a lot of celebrating by gun rights advocates, and by proponents of the interpre tiff theory of reism. th was understanble. heller was the fit snificant victorfor gun ritsnhe history the supreme court. and the majority opinion is filled to the brim with the rhetoric of originalism and detail to historical senses. i just wish it were all true. but i'm afraid this reminds me of a little bit of the celebrations of the court's commerce clause decisions in lopez and morrison.rpretive theory. there was no supreme court precedence, certainly none that could be considered dispositive. this was also a good test case for originalism, because the send amendment poses some genuine puzzles. its text uniquely explains a command. what it says is a well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a ee state, the bear as shall n be keep and infringed. what is the importance of a well regulat