Second Amendment Commons^™

Retail Rebellion And The Second Amendment, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

When, if ever, is there a Second Amendment right to kill a cop? This piece seeks to answer that question. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment codifies a natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That right to self-defense extends to both private and public threats, including self-defense against agents of a tyrannical government. Moreover, the right is individual. Individuals -- not just communities -- have the right to protect themselves from public violence. Individuals -- not just militias -- have the right to defend themselves against tyranny. In McDonald …

Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, Mcdonald, And The Future Of Corporate Constitutional Rights, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court began its 2009 Term by addressing the constitutional rights of corporations. It ended the Term by addressing the incorporated rights of the Constitution. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a five-member majority of the Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their own money on political advocacy. A corporation generally is no different than a natural person when it comes to the First Amendment - at least as it relates to political speech. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, a plurality of the Court held that the Second Amendment to the United …

Deactivating The Mousetrap: Entrapment By Estoppel As A Defense To Federal Felon-In-Possession Charges, Madeline Stavis

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

No One Ever Died From Copyright Infringement: The Inducement Doctrine's Applicability To Firearms Manufacturer Liability, Shane Wagman

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fair Measure Of The Right To Vote: A Comparative Perspective On Voting Rights Enforcement In A Maturing Democracy, Janai S. Nelson

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article examines the underenforcement of the right to vote in Ghana, focusing on the exclusion of incarcerated citizens (GICs) despite the 1992 Constitution granting universal adult suffrage. It argues that underenforcement stems from legislative, administrative, and judicial failures, undermining democratic principles. The Ghanaian Supreme Court's decision in OcanseyCHURCIL ruled that denying GICs the right to vote was unconstitutional, aligning with a broader interpretation of voting rights as fundamental. The article emphasizes the importance of explicit constitutional provisions and active enforcement by all government branches to sustain democracy, particularly in emerging democracies.

Where Do We Go From Here? Handgun Regulation In A Post-Heller World, Lindsey Craven

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Prudentialism In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

At least two kinds of prudential argument have been identified in the literature on constitutional interpretation: court-centered prudentialism and system-centered prudentialism. Commentators often characterize court-centered prudentialism as animated by concern over the Supreme Court’s preservation of its public legitimacy, which can be undermined when the Justices decide controversial questions in ways that cause backlash. By contrast, system-centered prudentialism asks not only what judicial decision is best for the Court’s effectiveness, but also what response is best for the constitutional system as a whole when the Court’s legitimacy is not at stake.

The Court’s recent decision in McDonald v. City of …

Administering The Second Amendment: Law, Politics, And Taxonomy , Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

This article anticipates the post-McDonald landscape by assessing the right to arms in the context of several state regulations and the arguments that might be employed as challenges to them unfold. So far, the core test for determining the scope of the individual right to arms is the common use standard articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller. Measured against that, standard firearm regulations fit into three categories. The first category contains laws that are easily administered under the common use standard. The second category – and the primary focus of this article – consists of laws that can be …

Rescuing The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Clause: How "Attrition Or Parliamentary Processes" Begat Accidental Ambiguity; How Ambiguity Begat Slaughter-House, Michael Anthony Lawrence

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Constitutional Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, No. 08-1521 (U.S. Nov. 23, 2009)., Richard L. Aynes, Jack M. Balkin, Randy E. Barnett, Steven G. Calabresi, Michael Kent Curtis, Michael A. Lawrence, William Van Alstyne, Adam Winkler

Con Law Center Amicus Briefs

The question in this case is whether the individual right to keep and bear arms recently recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, and held applicable to the federal government, must also be protected against state infringement. The textually and historically accurate way to determine if the states must respect an individual right to keep and bear arms is to examine the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Amici submit to the Court that the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected substantive, fundamental rights against state infringement, including the constitutional right of …

St. George Tucker's Lecture Notes, The Second Amendment, And Originalist Methodology: A Critical Comment, Saul Cornell

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

An Opinion Without Standards: The Supreme Court's Refusal To Adopt A Standard Of Constitutional Review In District Of Columbia V. Heller Will Likely Cause Headaches For Future Judicial Review Of Gun-Control Regulations, Ryan L. Card

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

District Of Columbia V. Heller And Originalism, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking a District of Columbia statute that prohibits the possession of useable handguns in the home on the ground that it violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Justice Scalia's majority opinion drew dissents from Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer. Collectively, the opinions in Heller represent the most important and extensive debate on the role of original meaning in constitutional interpretation among the members of the contemporary Supreme Court.

This Article investigates the relationship between originalist constitutional theory …

Brief Of Constitutional Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Reversal, Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244 (7th Cir. Filed 2009)., Richard L. Aynes, Jack M. Balkin, Michael K. Curtis, Michael A. Lawrence

Con Law Center Amicus Briefs

The parties—and the district court below—all agree that the threshold question in this case is whether the individual right to bear arms recently recognized by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and applied in the context of the federal government and the District of Columbia, must also be protected against state infringement. In modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, the most common means of “incorporating” rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights against the states has been under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the textually and historically accurate approach to determining whether the Fourteenth Amendment …

The Right To Defensive Arms After District Of Columbia V. Heller, Michael P. O'Shea

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

District Of Columbia V. Heller And Originalism, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking a District of Columbia statute that prohibits the possession of useable handguns in the home on the ground that it violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Justice Scalia's majority opinion drew dissents from Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer. Collectively, the opinions in Heller represent the most important and extensive debate on the role of original meaning in constitutional interpretation among the members of the contemporary Supreme Court.

This article investigates the relationship between originalist constitutional …

Guns As Smut: Defending The Home-Bound Second Amendment, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to keep and bear arms. But the Court left lower courts and legislatures adrift on the fundamental question of scope. While the Court stated in dicta that some regulation may survive constitutional scrutiny, it left the precise contours of the right, and even the method by which to determine those contours, for 'future evaluation."

This Article offers a provocative proposal for tackling the issue of Second Amendment scope, one tucked in many dresser drawers across the nation: Treat the Second Amendment …

Does Heller Protect A Right To Carry Guns Outside The Home?, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professors Of Law As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants And Reversal, Nordyke V. King, No. 07-15763 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2008)., Richard L. Aynes, Michael K. Curtis, Michael A. Lawrence, William W. Van Alstyne

Con Law Center Amicus Briefs

This Amicus brief summarizes the historic case for applying the Bill of Rights guarantees, including the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, to state and local governments. History supports application by way of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Amici do not address gun control generally, the validity of the local government act involved in this case, or the scrutiny that should be applied to gun regulation.

Shot Down: The D.C. Circuit Disarms Gun Control Laws In Parker V. District Of Columbia, Allison L. Mollenhauer

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Parker V. District Of Columbia: Putting The "I'S" In Milita, Katharine E. Kohm

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Heller And Insurrectionism, Carl Bogus

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Protect Private Arms Possession? Nine Theories Of The Second Amendment, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem Article And Essay, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type of supply regulation. Supply restrictions ranging from one-gun-a-month schemes to flat gun bans cannot work without a willingness and ability to reduce total inventory to levels approaching zero ("the supply-side ideal"). This is an impossible feat in a country that already has 300 million guns tightly held by people who think they are uniquely important tools. The average defiance ratio in places that have attempted gun confiscation and registration is 2.6 illegal guns for every legal one. In many countries defiance is far higher. None of those countries has …

A Constitutional Conundrum Of Second Amendment Commas, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

Prompted by the court’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, this series of correspondence discusses the effect possible forms of punctuation may have on the Second Amendment. The article makes comments on the important grammars during the founding and also two possible writings of the Second Amendment that contain different sets of punctuation.

An International Human Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Christopher J. Schmidt

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Unenumerated Rights And The Limits Of Analogy: A Critque Of The Right To Medical Self-Defense, O. Carter Snead

Journal Articles

Volokh’s project stands or falls with the claim that the entitlement he proposes is of constitutional dimension. If there is no fundamental right to medical self-defense, the individual must, for better or worse, yield to the regulation of this domain in the name of the values agreed to by the political branches of government. Indeed, the government routinely restricts the instrumentalities of self-help (including self-defense) in the name of avoiding what it takes to be more significant harms. This same rationale accounts for current governmental limitations on access to unapproved drugs and the current ban on organ sales. The FDA …

Felons, Guns, And The Limits Of Federal Power, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 385 (2006), Dean A. Strang

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Small V. United States: Defining "Any" As A Subset Of "Any", Lee G. Lester

University of Richmond Law Review

"It shall be unlawful for any person.., who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition ...." Although this statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), was enacted to keep firearms out of the hands of persons not entitled to possess them because of their criminal backgrounds, the scope of this statute has been controversial. Specifically, the federal circuits have disagreed as to whether the phrase "any court" applies to foreign courts …

Treating The Pen And The Sword As Constitutional Equals: How And Why The Supreme Court Should Apply Its First Amendment Expertise To The Great Second Amendment Debate, David G. Browne

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.