Second Amendment Commons^™

In Search Of A Standard: Gun Regulations After Heller And Mcdonald, Stephen Kiehl

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pro-Gun Property Regulation: How The State Of Oklahoma Controls The Property Rights Of Employers Through Firearm Legislation, J. Blake Patton

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

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.

United States V. Mccane: Judge Tymkovich Questions Heller’S Disarming Dicta, Stephen C. Mouritsen

BYU Law Review

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 …

The Law And Policy Implications Of 'Baited Ambushes' Utilizing Enemy Dead And Wounded, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

When a state's armed forces is engaged in hostilities, how long after an engagement or firefight before the international humanitarian law requirement to search for and care for the wounded and find and bury the dead is triggered? This military practitioner's note discusses the legal and policy implications of 'baited ambushes,' the practice of utilizing wounded and dead enemies as the bait for follow on forces, which are then engaged.

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 …

The People Of The Second Amendment: Citizenship And The Right To Bear Arms, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

The Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, asserts that the Constitution's right to bear arms is an individual right to armed self-defense held by law-abiding "citizens. " This Article examines the implications of this description, concluding that the Second Amendment cannot concurrently be a right of armed self-defense and restricted to citizens. The Article proceeds in three parts. First, it analyzes the term "the people" as it has been interpreted in recent Court cases. The Article concludes that constitutional text and Supreme Court jurisprudence provide no sustainable basis to believe the Second Amendment is limited …

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 …

"Gun Show Loophole" Bills: A Study Of Legislative Misdirection In 2009, Phillip Van Cleave

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, which left thirty-two students and faculty dead at the hands of a student armed with two handguns, gun-control organizations saw an opportunity to press their legislative agenda items forward with vigor. A host of gun-control bills were introduced in the 2008 and, to a lesser extent, the 2009 General Assembly sessions. For pro-gun groups, Virginia Tech's policy of not allowing any guns on campus was more proof that gun control only disarms good people. These groups argued that criminals, by definition, ignore the law and will simply get their guns …

The Hidden Second Amendment Framework Within "District Of Columbia V. Heller", Andrew R. Gould

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Second Amendment has always been shrouded in constitutional mystery. For most of our history, this mystery has centered on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court had not addressed the issue in any meaningful fashion, and lower courts continuously struggled with it, leading legal commentators to produce countless books, articles, and symposia on the topic.

The Court resolved this central Second Amendment question in June 2008 when it decided District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Court squarely confronted the meaning of the Second Amendment and held …

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 …

Gun Show Loophole Bills: A Study Of Legislative Misdirection In 2009, Philip Van Cleave

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, which left thirty-two students and faculty dead at the hands of a student armed with two handguns, gun-control organizations saw an opportunity to press their legislative agenda items forward with vigor. A host of gun-control bills were introduced in the 2008 and, to a lesser extent, the 2009 General Assembly sessions. For pro-gun groups, Virginia Tech's policy of not allowing any guns on campus was more proof that gun control only disarms good people. These groups argued that criminals, by definition, ignore the law and will simply get their guns …

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

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

A View Through The Gun Show Loophole, Andrew Goddard

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

The term "Gun Show Loophole" came about as a result of the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 19861 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. These laws effectively created a dual standard for gun sales based on the federal license status of the seller. The Brady Act mandated that licensed gun dealers must conduct criminal background checks on potential buyers regardless of whether the sale takes place at the dealer's store or at a gun show, whereas the Firearm Owners Protection Act expressly exempted "persons making occasional sales or selling all or part of a …

Second Amendment Decision Rules, Calvin R. Massey

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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 …

A View Through The Gun Show Loophole, Andrew Goddard

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

The term "Gun Show Loophole" came about as a result of the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 19861 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. These laws effectively created a dual standard for gun sales based on the federal license status of the seller. The Brady Act mandated that licensed gun dealers must conduct criminal background checks on potential buyers regardless of whether the sale takes place at the dealer's store or at a gun show, whereas the Firearm Owners Protection Act expressly exempted "persons making occasional sales or selling all or part of a …

District Of Columbia V. Heller: Failing To Establish A Standard For The Future, Lindsay Goldberg

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.