2nd Amendment Thread

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:04 am

Houston, We Have a Problem: Does the Second Amendment Create a Property Right to a Specific Firearm?

John L. Schwab & Thomas G. Sprankling

112 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 158 - July 2012

Introduction
Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 lower federal courts have endeavored to answer outstanding questions about the contours of the Second Amendment right. One issue that has received scant attention, even from academic commentators, is whether the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to own a specific weapon.2 The Fifth Circuit addressed this question in March 2012 in Houston v. City of New Orleans, although the panel that heard the case withdrew its initial decision two months later and vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling that had dismissed the defendant’s Second Amendment claims.3 While the Fifth Circuit’s original Houston decision is no longer good law, it is the best example to date of a circuit court’s attempt to grapple with whether the Second Amendment conveys a property right to a specific weapon. Consequently, this piece uses Houston as its central case study in the course of exploring the minimal existing caselaw regarding the extent to which the Second Amendment protects property ownership. All subsequent references to Houston are to the withdrawn opinion unless otherwise noted.

This piece contends that while the Houston majority and all other federal courts to consider the issue have reached the correct result (i.e., that the Second Amendment does not encompass a property right to a specific weapon), their reasoning has been brief and undertheorized. This piece will identify the gaps that exist in even the most analytically rigorous decision (the Houston majority opinion) and provide an analytical foundation to support that opinion against the Houston dissent’s primary arguments. Part I details the background Supreme Court caselaw and the small number of federal court decisions that have considered whether the Second Amendment encompasses a property right to a specific weapon. Part II identifies the gaps in the Houston majority opinion and engages directly with the reasoning of the dissent. Part III suggests a new test for fleshing out the scope of the Second Amendment, which is a task that circuit courts have just begun to undertake.
Full Article: http://columbialawreview.org/houston-we ... problem-2/
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Connecticut Law Review 45:5 (with links to all of the following articles):

Firearms Policy and the Black Community: An Assessment of the Modern Orthodoxy
by NICHOLAS J. JOHNSON
The heroes of the modern civil rights movement were more than just stoic victims of racist violence. Their history was one of defiance and fighting long before news cameras showed them attacked by dogs and fire hoses. When Fannie Lou Hamer revealed she kept a shotgun in every corner of her bedroom, she was channeling a century old practice. And when delta share cropper Hartman Turnbow, after a shootout with the Klan, said “I don’t figure I was being non-nonviolent, (yes non-nonviolent) I was just protecting my family”, he was invoking an evolved tradition that embraced self-defense and disdained political violence. The precise boundaries and policy implications of that tradition had always been debated as times and context changed. But the basic idea that the community would support indeed exalt the man or woman who fought back in self-defense, even with, nay, especially with arms, has a far longer pedigree than the modern orthodoxy which urges stringent supply controls as the clearly best firearms policy for black folk. Full consideration of this black tradition of arms raises serious questions about the practical wisdom and conceptual grounding of that modern orthodoxy.
In the Civic Republic: Crime, the Inner City, and the Democracy of Arms— Being a Disquisition on the Revival of the Militia at Large
by ROBERT J. COTTROL & RAYMOND T. DIAMOND
This Article examines the modern utility of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right to keep and bear arms” in light of the phenomenon of modern crime, particularly black-on-black violence in urban America. Although many advocates of gun control have argued that crime in modern cities is a reason for modifying or severely truncating the right to have arms, the Authors argue that the right to have arms and the Second Amendment’s notion of a universal militia can be the basis of a new partnership between police and citizens in urban America. This new partnership can, if properly developed, be a useful tool in fighting crime in inner-city communities.
Let Us Talk Past Each Other for a While: A Brief Response to Professor Johnson
by MICHAEL DE LEEUW
This Article is a brief response to Professor Johnson’s excellent lead article, Firearms Policy and the Black Community: An Assessment of the Modern Orthodoxy. Professor Johnson has (I would say unfairly) counted me among the “orthodoxy” that believes that any and all gun control measures are good for communities of color. He accuses me (and the rest of those who hew to the modern orthodoxy) of ignoring the clear and present danger faced by what he calls the “Parker/MacDonald class”—law-abiding citizens who live in dangerous neighborhoods that are (perhaps) not well served by law enforcement. Professor Johnson urges that members of the Parker/MacDonald class should be allowed to protect themselves in their homes and (presumably) on their streets. I admit that Professor Johnson’s anecdotal argument is persuasive, and I agree with him. But I also point out that the Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment guarantees the Parker/MacDonald class the right—subject to reasonable restrictions—to protect itself with certain classes of firearms—so that part of the debate is over. On that score, the Parker/MacDonald Class has won. But that does not scratch the surface of today’s gun rights/gun control divide—a divide that is bitter and will be difficult to bridge. I then lament the lack of good empirical data that could help inform the gun rights/gun control debate—a deficit that has led both sides of the debate to rely on obsolete data to support their arguments. I urge both sides to embrace new peer- reviewed empirical studies, for example, on defensive gun use and gun trafficking, that could help guide us toward a sane middle ground that would allow permissible restrictions that can actually save innocent lives, what I call the “Newtown/Pendleton/Harbour class.” I then turn the tables and ask Professor Johnson what gun control measures he would favor so long as the basic right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is guaranteed.
Self-Defense and Gun Regulation for All
by DAVID KAIRYS
The importance and universality of self-defense rights are beyond dispute. Self-defense emerged as a major social and constitutional issue in the second half of the twentieth century focused on minorities and women before it provided the primary basis for expansive Second Amendment rights. Supporters of broad Second Amendment rights base them on an individual and collective right to self-defense against attacks by others, but they differ about the source of the danger—the others who are attacking. Professor Nicholas Johnson emphasizes that law-abiding blacks are most at risk and most need guns to defend themselves because of black-on-black violence and the government’s failure to provide safety. He opposes gun regulation, which he considers “disarmament,” and favors armed self- defense. The import of the common arguments of opponents of gun regulation is that their absolutist understanding of their rights to self- defense and freedom, their dire perceptions of the perils of government, and their fantasies of the necessity and efficacy of armed resistance to the federal government require the rest of us to live with the open gun market, with its very real and immediate toll of over 30,000 people shot dead a year, and with the usually unspoken normalcy of widespread murder and fear that undermines the quality and tenor of daily life. But there are regulations that would significantly reduce the easy availability of guns to criminals, youth, and mass murderers without interfering with self-defense. Blacks and whites, and everybody else, do not need that open gun market for self-defense. Self-defense and gun regulation can coexist.
Murder, Self-Defense, and the Right to Arms
by DON B. KATES & ALICE MARIE BEARD
Despite being well aware of crime and uprisings, the framers of the Bill of Rights made a policy decision to guarantee a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a constitutional right that “shall not be infringed.” Courts should not ignore the policy decision of the framers, and courts should not supplant the framers’ policy decision with their own. Empirical research shows that there is no gun control measure that has reduced murder, violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. Thus, even under intermediate scrutiny, the government cannot prove that there is a reasonable fit between its objective of applying a gun control law to all people—both law-abiding and non-law-abiding—and its governmental justification to reduce crime.
Evolving Christian Attitudes Towards Personal and National Self-Defense
by DAVID B. KOPEL
This Article analyzes the changes in orthodox Christian attitudes towards defensive violence. While the Article begins in the 19th century and ends in the 21st, most of the Article is about the 20th century. The Article focuses on American Catholicism and on the Vatican, although there is some discussion of American Protestantism. In the nineteenth and early in the twentieth centuries, the traditional Christian concepts of Just War and of the individual’s duty to use force to defend himself and his family remained uncontroversial, as they had been for centuries. Disillusionment over World War I turned many Catholics and Protestants towards pacifism. Without necessarily adopting pacifism as a theory, they adopted pacifism as a practice. World War II and the early Cold War ended the pacifist interlude for all but a few radical pacifists. Beginning in the 1960s, much of the American Catholic leadership, like the leadership of mainline Protestant churches, turned sharply Left. Although churches did not repudiate their teachings on Just War, many Catholic and mainline Protestant leaders seemed unable to find any circumstances under which American or Western force actually was legitimate. Pacifism and anti- Americanism marched hand in hand. Today, pacifism now has greater respectability within orthodox Christianity than any time in the past 1700 years. Among the influential thinkers profiled in this Article are all Popes from World War II to the present, Dorothy Day and her Catholic Worker Movement, and the Berrigan Brothers. The Article suggests that some recent trends in pacifist or quasi-pacifist approaches have been unduly influenced by hostility to the United States, and by the use of narrowly-focused emotion rather than the rigorous analysis that has characterized Catholic philosophy.

Firearms Policy and the Black Community: Rejecting the “Wouldn’t You Want a Gun if Attacked?” Argument
by ANDREW JAY MCCLURG
The gun lobby has succeeded in focusing the gun debate on a narrow, oversimplified question: “If a criminal attacked you, wouldn’t you prefer to have a gun to protect yourself?” This Article asserts that the question—which correlates with a “more guns” argument—is a red herring, a diversion that leads us off track and blinds us to the need for comprehensive strategies to address the complex, polycentric issues of gun violence in America. In his article, Firearms Policy and the Black Community: An Assessment of the Modern Orthodoxy, Professor Nicholas Johnson pursues a version of the “Wouldn’t you want a gun if attacked?” argument particularized to black communities. Johnson uses the article as a platform for opposing black leaders who support gun regulation while essentially advocating for a “more guns” approach to violence in black communities. This reply Article highlights structural and rhetorical issues in Johnson’s arguments, but focuses on the reasoning fallacy inherent in concentrating the gun debate on a single, exaggerated utility of guns (i.e., the “Wouldn’t you want a gun if attacked?” argument) without fairly considering the offsetting risks or costs. It also asserts we should act quickly as a nation to invest in more research and data collection pertaining to the causes and prevention of firearms deaths and injuries, including the efficacy of guns for self-defense. Only with current, accurate information—which does not exist due in large part to efforts by the gun lobby to stifle gun research—can governments and individuals make rational firearms choices. The Article concludes with a detour from the academic, theoretical world of gun debating to Memphis, Tennessee, one of America’s most violent cities.
Uncoupling the Constitutional Right to Self-Defense from the Second Amendment: Insights from the Law of War
by WILLIAM G. MERKEL
This Article contextualizes Professor Nicholas Johnson’s argument that a robust right to arms is essential to the security of Black communities in the United States. While accepting Johnson’s premise that private self-defense is necessary where government is hostile towards or unable to defend a community against violence, this Article maintains that the Second Amendment as understood at the time of its ratification did not extend to private self-defense. Rather than force- fitting a private right to self-defense into the syntactically and contextually unrelated Second Amendment as one-Justice majorities have done in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Author suggests that honest intellectual engagement with moral and philosophical claims in favor of a private right to self-defense could profit enormously from careful consideration of the jus ad bellum, the branch of public international law concerning the right of states to defend themselves against armed attack. The lack of an absolute textual command in the Constitution, federalism, and deference to democratically legitimate legislative policy making favor judicial accommodation of public safety and arms control concerns alongside private claims of self-defense. Comparing the right to self-defense in domestic law (as illustrated by the Trayvon Martin case) to the right to self-defense in public international law (as illustrated by the arguments advanced by the Bush and Obama Administrations to justify the use of unmanned drones to target Al Qaeda operatives) suggests that claims to use force in self-defense must be limited to situations in which an actual attack is underway or imminent. The Author concludes by suggesting that these limits are inherent in general principles of law basic to the very nature of self-defense, and that constitutional jurisprudence in the United States would benefit greatly from attending to these general principles of law and abandoning historically implausible and disingenuous originalism when assessing claims premised on the right to self-defense.
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

"Mentally Defective" Language in the Gun Control Act

Jana R. McCreary

45 Conn. L. Rev. 813 - Feb. 2013
The oft-quoted argument asserts that “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” It is essential, then, that gun legislation clearly address who the people are who should not possess or purchase guns. As the country once again reacts to a tragedy with renewed interest in implementing new gun legislation, we must use caution to clearly identify who should be restricted from acquiring firearms.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 and its subsequent amendments fail at this task. When considering the ease with which persons with dangerous mental illnesses may legally purchase firearms because they do not meet technical and vague requirements under the Act—requirements put in place to prevent such persons from possessing firearms—it is clear that the Act fails. Tragic consequences result: six people dead at a grocery store in Tucson, Arizona at the hands of Jared Lee Loughner; twelve people dead at the hands of James E. Holmes in Aurora, Colorado. Additionally, when information to warn against illegal purchase of firearms is not requested due to ill-informed interpretations of the language, tragic consequences result: thirty-three people dead at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at the hands of Seung Hui Cho. Loughner, Holmes, and Cho had shown signs of mental illness. Loughner, Holmes, and Cho purchased their firearms, the firearms they used for the murders they committed, from federally licensed firearms dealers. Loughner did so legally. Holmes did so legally. Cho did so without vital information regarding his dangerousness ever being reported. These three men slipped through the cracks and fifty-one people died as a result. The cracks exist due to the Act’s language and its interpretation—its defective language.

This Article addresses the failure of the Gun Control Act regarding persons with dangerous mental illness who purchase firearms in spite of their status of being dangerously mentally ill. By looking at two headline-grabbing cases, the Article explores the dire consequences of the Act’s vague—and even misleading—language. Alternative approaches, including issuing permits, are suggested as means to help prevent such tragic outcomes and to guide new legislation.
Full Article: http://connecticutlawreview.org/article ... ntrol-act/
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:23 am

Hidden or on the Hip: the Right(s) to Carry After Heller

James Bishop

97 Cornell L. Rev. 907 (May 2012)

Introduction
On August 16, 2009, law enforcement reported approximately a dozen men openly carrying firearms at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, held in close proximity to where President Barack Obama was giving an address. 1 Responding to expressions of concern, Fox Business News commentator Jim Rawles objected, arguing that these Phoenix protesters were "merely exercising a constitutional right." 2 When pressed by the program's host about carrying openly without displaying a permit, Rawles replied, "we do have a permit - it's called the Second Amendment." 3 Many observers called the display provocative, 4 but police made no arrests. 5 Roughly seventeen months later, Jared Loughner killed six and wounded thirteen, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, when he opened fire on a peaceful gathering in Tucson, Arizona, with a legally purchased, lawfully concealed handgun.6

There is perhaps no more jarring example of the gulf between our past and our present as Americans, and no clearer picture of the cultural divide around the Second Amendment, than the open wearing of firearms on the streets of a modern American city. As Professor Eugene Volokh points out, there is an "air of unreality" surrounding the topic of open carry. 7 Scenes of Starbucks patrons packing holstered handguns, 8 open-carry rallies in Palo Alto, 9 and openly armed men outside a presidential speaking engagement implicate the public interest in safety, civility, and order, but these scenes also stir passionate support from advocates for the right of self-defense. 10 Only slightly less provocative is the controversy over whether widespread access to concealed-handgun permits is in the public interest, 11 a controversy given renewed urgency by the Tucson shooting. 12

Although the Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller singled out bans on the concealed carry of handguns as presumptively constitutional, laws that prevent citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense unless they can show "good cause" are vulnerable under Heller. 13 As discussed in detail in Part II, at least two cases would put the question squarely before the Supreme Court. At issue is whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense, whether states can require citizens to show cause before exercising this right, and whether states can ban one outlet for the right to carry if they allow the other.

Part I of this Note outlines a taxonomy of state laws governing firearm carry. Part II considers two cases challenging handgun-carry laws in California and New York under the still largely unexplored Heller doctrine. Part III highlights several alternatives for state carry regulation and proposes a solution to the dilemma that many states would face following a Supreme Court decision finding that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry for self-defense.
Full Article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2210149
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:23 am

The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home: History Versus Ahistorical Standards of Review

Patrick J. Charles

60 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1 - 2012
In the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller 1 and McDonald v. City of Chicago 2 there have been numerous legal challenges to extend the Second Amendment outside the home. The challenges come in all forms. Some advocates rely on Heller's dicta to claim handguns provide the quintessential self-defense weapon outside the home. 3 Other's take a balancing of liberty approach to claim any threats to the liberty, security, and property of a person know no bounds, and may be preserved with the public carrying of arms. 4 Lastly, some challenges invoke First Amendment jurisprudence to assert that any prior restraints on armed individual self-defense are unconstitutional, unless the government can show a compelling or substantial government interest for doing so. 5

In terms of historiography, what makes these challenges interesting is they are a complete reversal from the Standard Model stance nearly three decades earlier. Writing in 1983, Don B. Kates determined the Second Amendment did not protect the right to carry guns outside the home, unless "in the course of militia service." 6 "Outside that context," wrote Kates, "the only carrying of firearms which the amendment appears to protect is such transportation as is implicit in the concept of a right to possess--e.g., transporting them between the purchaser or owner's premises and a shooting range, or a gun store or gunsmith and so on." 7

Today, however, the view of the Second Amendment has drastically changed. Following the opinions in Heller and McDonald, advocacy groups are pushing for robust Second Amendment rights outside the home. This includes rights to open carry, conceal carry, and even a revisionist libertarian spin of William Blackstone's analysis on auxiliary rights. 8 Needless to say, the Second Amendment is continuing to morph further into mythical meaning, and farther away from any historical context. 9

How is this being accomplished? One answer is revisionist history. This occurs in all areas of constitutional law from the First Amendment 10 to congressional power over immigration, 11 and is not limited to the Second Amendment. 12 Revisionism surfaces as a means for individuals, advocacy groups, public interest groups and even politicians to advance an agenda through the courts rather than adopt legislation or constitutional reform. In short, revisionist history is a reeducation of the public to believe a historical fiction was in fact a historical reality. 13
Full Article: http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/c ... clevstlrev
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:23 am

Exit, Pursued by a "Bear"? New York City's Handgun Laws in the Wake of Heller and McDonald

Matthew Bridge

46 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 145 (Winter 2012)
In its landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Then, in 2010, the Court held that this right is fully incorporated against state and local governments in McDonald v. Chicago. Both decisions declared that outright bans on handgun possession in the home were unconstitutional. However, the Court's holdings have left many questions unanswered regarding which state and local gun regulations are constitutional under the new framework. This Note discusses the current handgun laws of New York City and New York State and seeks to determine which regulations will pass constitutional muster, and which may be invalidated.
Full Article: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Win ... Bridge.pdf
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:24 am

After Newtown: Reconsidering Kelley v. R.G. Industries and the Radical Idea of Product-Category Liability for Manufacturers of Unreasonably Dangerous Firearms

Neal S. Shechter

102 Geo. L.J. 551 - Jan. 2014
Part I of this paper explores the background of the Kelley case and the circumstances that led the Maryland Court of Appeals to lash out against the powerful gun industry. Part II examines criticisms aimed at the Kelley opinion and identifies good arguments that the court exhibited sound legal judgment in a controversy that it was perfectly competent to examine. Finally, Part III contextualizes the Kelley decision within the dramatic changes in American attitudes regarding gun crime and gun control and maintains that the opinion still has relevance today, as gun control advocates refocus on assault weapons.
Full Article: http://georgetownlawjournal.org/article ... -firearms/

Link to Kelley Decision: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwel ... stries.txt
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:24 am

Fourth Circuit Upholds Good-and-Substantial-Reason Requirement for Concealed Carry Permits. — Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013).

127 Harv. L. Rev. 1477 (2014)
In 2008, the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller 1 that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to possess and carry a firearm for self-defense in the home. 2 In 2010, the Court made clear in McDonald v. City of Chicago 3 that this right also applies against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 4 Because the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and "declared only that it "shall not be infringed,'" 5 these cases employed a lengthy and detailed inquiry into the historical understanding of the Second Amendment in order to define its scope. Recently, in Woollard v. Gallagher, 6 the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland's requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun in public demonstrate "good and substantial reason" to do so did not violate the Second Amendment. 7 Despite its recognition that historical inquiry is essential in delineating the Second Amendment's scope, the Fourth Circuit nonetheless eschewed historical analysis altogether in favor of a familiar intermediate scrutiny standard. Such an approach reflects the difficulties that judges face in attempting to parse inconclusive historical evidence for clear answers to contemporary problems.

Full Article: http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/ ... e_9582.php
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:24 am

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — SECOND AMENDMENT — SEVENTH CIRCUIT STRIKES DOWN ILLINOIS’S BAN ON PUBLIC CARRY OF READY-TO-USE FIREARMS. — Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), reh’g en banc denied, 708 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2013).

126 Harv. L. Rev. 2461

In District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the Supreme Court decided that “the Second Amendment confer an individual right to keep and bear arms,”2 in particular for the purpose of self-defense inside one’s own home.3 Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago,4 the Court held that its interpretation of the Second Amendment in Heller was “fully applicable to the States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.5 However, the scope of this right outside the home was left undefined.6 Even after these holdings, Illinois maintained its restrictive gun control statutes, which criminalized carrying a readily accessible firearm out- side one’s home, place of business, or another’s home where the gun carrier was an invitee.7 Recently, in Moore v. Madigan,8 the Seventh Circuit held the Illinois laws unconstitutional in light of Heller and McDonald, extending the individual right to keep and bear a firearm for self-defense beyond the home and into the public sphere.9 While Supreme Court precedent requires courts to conduct historical inquiries in Second Amendment cases, the Moore opinion failed to consider either the Amendment in its full constitutional context or what the Framers’ conception of judicial review counsels for judges engaged in originalist interpretation. A more comprehensive originalist approach reveals that shielding the home from governmental regulation was a foundational value in the Bill of Rights and that the Founders placed a premium on judicial restraint, calling into question the Moore decision.

Full Article: http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/p ... adigan.pdf
Image

User avatar
de officiis
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am

Re: 2nd Amendment Thread

Post by de officiis » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:25 am

California’s Unloaded Open Carry Bans: A Constitutional and Risky, but Perhaps Necessary, Gun Control Strategy

Charlie Sarosy

61 UCLA L. Rev. 464 (Jan. 2014)
California recently passed bans on openly carrying an unloaded gun in public, but these bans may ironically result in increased concealed carrying of loaded guns in public. Before the recent string of mass shootings in Arizona, Colorado, and Connecticut, and before the U.S. Senate’s failed effort to pass gun control legislation, California strengthened its already strict gun control framework by passing Assembly Bill (A.B.) 144 and A.B. 1527. A.B. 144, which took effect in January 2012, bans individuals from openly carrying unloaded handguns. A.B. 1527, which took effect in January 2013, bans individuals from openly carrying unloaded rifles and shotguns. Gun rights groups argue that, with these bans in effect, a person can carry a gun in public only if she obtains a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit. But because such permits are difficult to obtain in highly populated counties, the groups further argue that the discretionary permitting process infringes on what they view as a person’s Second Amendment right to carry in public.

But the gun rights groups overlook the fact that the bans on both unloaded and loaded open carry have an exception for when a person reasonably believes that any person or any person’s property is in immediate, grave danger. Two federal district courts in California relied on this exception to uphold the CCW permitting process before the passage of A.B. 144 and A.B. 1527. Assuming that there is a right to carry a gun in public for self-defense against a specific threat, a court would likely rely on this exception to uphold again the CCW permitting process even with the new unloaded open carry bans. But their constitutionality is not guaranteed. California’s passage of A.B. 144 and A.B. 1527 has thus made its concealed carry framework vulnerable to another constitutional challenge. Nevertheless, given the federal government’s failure to move forward on gun control, California’s risky move may be necessary to push forward both the statewide and nationwide gun control movements.
Full Article: http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=5094
Image