Second Amendment Commons^™

Statutory Restrictions On Concealed Carry: A Five-Circuit Shoot Out, Justine E. Johnson-Makuch

Fordham Law Review

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified a citizen’s core Second Amendment right to keep a firearm at home; however, the Court left open the question of how the Second Amendment applies beyond the home. Since Heller, lower courts have struggled to determine the constitutionality of concealed carry laws in light of this new understanding of the Second Amendment.

    Many states have enacted laws that restrict a citizen’s ability to obtain a concealed carry permit, and some of the restrictions are not controversial, such as the requirements to be above a certain age and have a …

Doe V. Wilmington Housing Authority: The Common Area Caveat As A Paradigmatic Balance Between Tenant Safety And Second Amendment Rights, Iyen Acosta

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Back To The Basics: Restoration Of Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms Through A National Reciprocity Act, Julie Morgan

University of Miami Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guns And Ammo: For Convicted Americans Viewing Pictures Of Others Enjoying Their Constitutional Right To Bear Arms In A Magazine Is The Closest They Will Ever Get To Seeing The Second Amendment At Work - People V. Hughes, Ronald P. Perry

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rise And Demise Of The Collective Right Interpretation Of The Second Amendment, David T. Hardy

Cleveland State Law Review

This article explores the origins of the two competing theories of the Second Amendment -- the "individual rights" approach which carried the majority in Heller and McDonald, and the variants of a "collective right" theory which was previously dominant in the lower courts, and one variant of which was endorsed by the Heller dissents. Careful analysis of states' bills of rights of the Framing period suggests that two guarantees were desired, by different political factions. Framers closely adhering to the Classical Republican point of view favored protection for the militia as a system; those favoring the emerging Jeffersonian point of …

The Second Amendment As Interpreted By Congress And The Court, Sean J. Kealy

Faculty Scholarship

In the last two years, the U.S. Supreme Court has finally offered a reasoned interpretation of the Second Amendment. By the slimmest of majorities in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment supplies an individually-held right to bear arms; the government may place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but neither the federal government nor an individual state can deprive a person of their right to possess a handgun. Despite many pages of opinion, however, the majority in Heller offers an unsatisfying explanation for why the Second Amendment …

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 …

Arms For Their Defence - An Historical, Legal And Textual Analysis Of The English Right To Have Arms And Whether The Second Amendment Should Be Incorporated In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago , Patrick J. Charles

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article analyzes the arguments Individual Rights Scholars have made concerning the right to have arms and their influence on Supreme Court decisions regarding gun control. The author compares these arguments with historical English gun control laws to show that there is a misunderstanding between the idea that gun ownership rights have always been protected by government.

From Ballots To Bullets: District Of Columbia V. Heller And The New Civil Rights, Anders Walker

All Faculty Scholarship

This article posits that the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment ruling District of Columbia v. Heller is a victory for civil rights, but not in the sense that most activists from the 1960s would recognize. Rather than a product of mid-century legal liberalism, Heller marks the culmination of almost forty years of coalition-based popular constitutionalism aimed at transforming the individual right to bear arms and the common law right to "employ deadly force in self-defense" into new civil rights. The implications of this are potentially great. By declaring the right to use deadly force in self-defense an "essential" right, the …

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

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lock & Load? The 2nd Amendment Arrives On Campus, Porcher L. Taylor Iii, Beth Anne Simonds

School of Professional and Continuing Studies Faculty Publications

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed decision regarding the Second Amendment in June, state lawmakers, university policymakers and campus safety personnel nationwide face a conundrum that must be answered in a prudent way. The solution will greatly impact the daily lives of everyone on campus.

The Inconvenient Militia Clause Of The Second Amendment: Why The Supreme Court Declines To Resolve The Debate Over The Rights To Bear Arms, Robert M. Hardaway, Elizabeth Gormley, Bryan Taylor

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

There are sound public policy reasons why gun ownership by law abiding citizens in a free society should be protected. Good public policy, however, cannot be formulated as long as there remain fundamental misconceptions about the meaning and history of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the law interpreting it. In August of 1994, an exasperated American Bar Association, finding itself unable to match the Gun Lobby's publicity campaigns, pleaded for help from the legal profession to educate the American public about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the intent of the Constitutional Framers. Specifically, the ABA …

The Second Amendment: Structure, History, And Constitutional Change, David S. Yassky

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Part I of the Article engages the revisionists squarely on the turf they have staked out: the intent of those who framed and ratified the Second Amendment. Here I credit the revisionists with some important insights. Their research reminds us how greatly the world in which the Second Amendment was adopted differed from our own. This perspective helps us understand how the Founders could have placed the right to bear arms on par with the right to free speech--a decision that baffles many modern Americans. Yet while the revisionists correctly perceive that the right to keep and bear arms was …

Panelist (Symposium: The Second Amendment), David S. Yassky

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

To understand the Second Amendment and what the Founders who wrote it were trying to do, you have to understand the conceptual framework that they were working in. And that conceptual framework is based on two concepts regarding the military: the concept of the army and the concept of the militia.

The Second Amendment is about how the military power of the United States should be organized. It grew out of one of the most pretentious issues faced by the Philadelphia Convention, which was: what military power should they give this new Federal Government? They're sitting down to write the …

The Sound Of Silence: The Supreme Court And The Second Amendment - A Response To Professor Kopel, David S. Yassky

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Until now, the revisionists have based their argument entirely on claims about the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Second Amendment. Revisionists have heretofore conceded that the courts have rejected their approach; indeed, the basic structure of the revisionist argument has been: The Founders intended an individual right to firearm possession; the courts (abetted by the academy) have all but nullified the Amendment by treating it as a mere safeguard for militia; the courts should recognize their error and strike down gun control laws.

With his latest contribution, David Kopel seeks to open a second front in the …

Finding The Right Target, Richard C. Reuben

Faculty Publications

It is no surprise that the most significant handgun control law passed by Congress has produced a potential blockbuster case before the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, intense debate has been going on for years over the extent of the right to bear arms under

the Second Amendment. Congress took more than a decade to pass the Brady Handgun Control Act of 1993, 18 U.S.C. § 922(s), named for James Brady, the press secretary to President Reagan who was wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt. But while a pair of cases challenging the Brady Act might have been expected to …

The Militia Movement And Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring With The People, David C. Williams

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.