Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:31 am
Time: 11:31 am
Results for second amendment
5 results foundAuthor: Gleason, Diana Title: 2015 Update: Can I Bring My Gun? A Fifty State Survey of Firearm Laws Impacting Policies Prohibiting Handguns in Public Libraries Summary: In Capital Area District Library v. Michigan Open Carry, 826 N.W. 2d 736 (2012), the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that state law preempted the library's weapons policy prohibiting firearms in the library. My article, Can I Bring My Gun? A Fifty State Survey of Firearm Laws Impacting Policies Prohibiting Handguns in Public Libraries,* asked how laws in each state impact similar policies prohibiting handguns in public libraries. The article warned that many states and the federal government were in the process of amending laws to increase or decrease gun restrictions, and that ongoing change could be expected. In fact, since the article was published in December, 2013, over half the states have amended or promulgated statutes impacting the issue. This update provides a more accurate baseline for following gun laws in the states and District of Columbia. Where information in the original article remains the same the text has not been changed. Details: Moscow, ID: University of Idaho College of law Library, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605937 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605937 Shelf Number: 136842 Keywords: College and UniversitiesFirearmsGun ControlGun PolicySecond Amendment |
Author: Barnhizer, David Title: Gun Control Hysteria Summary: The call to ban guns does not make sense from an effective regulatory perspective. Nor do gun control proposals representing an irrational fear of weapons satisfy Constitutional analysis whether that analysis proceeds under either a strict interpretation or "evolving document" analysis. The irony is that the "living and evolving document" approach to Constitutional interpretation, under current real-world threats and conditions, actually requires affirmative protections of Second Amendment rights. A key determinant of how rights and duties should be adapted to the "new normal" of serious and escalating risks of decentralized and distributed violence pursuant to the "living" US Constitution is that it must now be adjusted to the higher and "threat levels" we are experiencing. This means that the fundamental right to bear arms for defense of self and family must be given greater weight and deference under either a strict interpretation or evolving document approach. In terms of effective regulation, every gun control measure proposed or enacted since the Clinton administration has either failed or must fail when tested against the real world. Regulatory flops such as the Clinton "assault weapons" ban target firearms only rarely used in crime. Proposals or actual programs for firearms registries tug at the heartstrings of those who believe in the ability of the state to properly manage and control social interactions, but in practice fail to solve crimes, do not deter criminal conduct, nor make law-abiding citizens safer in any meaningful respect. Over and over, proposed firearm-restrictive "solutions" are only words on paper, inevitable and expensive regulatory "flops" with no hope of working and typical expressions of cynical politicians' public relations strategies aimed at garnering votes from the uninformed. Anti-gun advocates - at least those acting in good faith and not from purely cynical political motives - are convinced that any views contrary to their own are products of "barbarism", ignorance or some form of malicious social "psychosis". Whether a gun owner possesses weapons for reasons of self-defense, from a desire to defend local and national community if needed, or simply because the individual enjoys target shooting, hunting or being part of a "gun culture" such motivations are entirely incompatible with the belief systems of anti-gun activists who exist in secure "cocoons". Moreover, and remarkably, such regulations fail to conform to good faith Constitutional analysis under either an "originalist" or a "living constitution" type of analysis. While the Court itself has resolved the question of individual rights to firearm ownership in Heller and MacDonald, an honestly-applied "living constitution" analysis also requires the state to recognize and promote individual rights to firearm ownership and defense of self and others. Specifically, "living constitutionalists" claim that the text of the Constitution adopts different meanings depending upon perceived needs, morals, or other socio-political-contextual factors. In analyzing the perceived needs, morals, or other socio-political-contextual factors that define modern culture, an inescapably dominant reality is that the "threat climate" of the US has escalated significantly. This includes increasing sectarian strife, inadequate "after the fact" law enforcement, and the burgeoning rise in terroristic threats. Repeated ominous warnings from governmental actors charged with defending us indicate the risks we face are significant and becoming worse. We are being inundated with warnings from our officials that terrorist organizations are guaranteed to launch attacks in the United States. Some of the attackers will be long-time residents or newly radicalized citizens who seem to spring out of nowhere - as in the San Bernardino murders. We will be living with "lone wolf" attacks for several decades and must be prepared to deal with them. Unlike Supreme Court justices and presidents, the vast majority of Americans do not have personal guards or the resources needed to live in a secure suburban environment or gated community. Those who live in America's cities and in scattered rural areas with little police presence legitimately feel a greater need to be able to defend self, family and property from human predators. In such a context no one should disagree that the first obligation of a political community - local and national - is to provide security against crime and military assaults. Recognition that local and national communities are at a steadily increasing risk of violent attacks - whether from criminals or terrorists - has led a number of law enforcement officials to urge those who are legally eligible to do so to carry weapons and be prepared to react to violent assaults, ironically an urging to prepare to be able to act as a sort of "militia". The fact that experienced law enforcement officials see the need for defense of self, others and community against terrorist threats or to counter emotionally disturbed people intent on killing helpless people in "soft target" situations indicates strongly that our culture has changed in a fundamental way. The "new normal" of American culture involves the increased risk of violent attacks from foreign and homegrown sources - virtually none of which is comprised of actors who are legal owners of guns. Details: Cleveland, OH: Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 295 : Accessed March 26, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744879 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744879 Shelf Number: 138425 Keywords: Gun ControlGun Control policyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceRight to Bear ArmsSecond AmendmentSelf Defense |
Author: Rosenthal, Lawrence Title: The Constitutional Case for Limiting Public Carry Summary: Perhaps the single most important question arising in the wake of the Supreme Court's holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, even for purposes unrelated to service in an organized militia, is whether the Constitution permits limitations on the ability to carry firearms in public. For high-crime, unstable urban neighborhoods, an absolute constitutional right to carry firearms would likely cripple the type of problem-oriented, preventative policing that has successfully driven guns and drugs off of many urban streetscapes and has produced concomitant reductions in violent crime. This Issue Brief addresses the constitutional status of laws that endeavor to facilitate preventative policing by limiting the right to carry firearms in public. Details: Washington, DC: American Constitution Society, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed May 5, 2016 at: https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Rosenthal_-_The_Constitutional_Case_for_Limiting_Public_Carry_.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Rosenthal_-_The_Constitutional_Case_for_Limiting_Public_Carry_.pdf Shelf Number: 138954 Keywords: Gun ControlGun Control PolicyGun LawsPreventative policingSecond Amendment |
Author: Lund, Nelson Title: Fourth Circuit Shootout: 'Assault Weapons' and the Second Amendment Summary: Severe restrictions on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines have long been an important agenda item for organized proponents of gun control. For just as long, gun rights activists have accused their opponents of a kind of bait and switch. The main targets of these restrictions have been rifles that look like M16s, AK-47s, and other military rifles, but operate differently. Since 1934, civilians have been required to undergo a costly and burdensome federal licensing process in order to possess fully automatic weapons, commonly referred to as machineguns. Such weapons, which include military rifles, are now rare and expensive because the federal government froze the civilian supply in 1986. The rifles at which more recent laws are aimed, such as the AR-15 and AR-10, have a superficial resemblance to military weapons but use a semi-automatic operating system like those found in many ordinary hunting guns, as well as in a very large proportion of modern handguns. These semi-automatics are now called "modern sporting rifles" by their defenders, who hope to discourage the public from being fooled into mistaking them for machineguns. The debate about this issue assumed national prominence in 1994, when Congress enacted a statute that restricted the sale of semi-automatic rifles with a military appearance and all magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Although the statute contained a grandfather clause exempting weapons already in civilian hands, it provoked a firestorm of criticism, and the Democratic Party promptly lost control of both Houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. When the law expired by operation of a sunset provision ten years later, President Bush advocated its renewal. The Republican Congress ignored him, and the Democrats failed to revive the measure after they regained control of Congress and the presidency in 2009. Evidently regarding such legislation as politically toxic, neither party has enacted a major gun control law at the national level for almost a quarter of a century. Several states, however, have enacted laws that are modeled on the 1994 federal statute. Maryland's version was recently upheld by the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, in Kolbe v. Hogan. This decision offers a useful lens through which to view the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized a constitutional right to keep a handgun at home for self defense. In Kolbe, the majority concluded that the Second Amendment has no bearing on the Maryland statute. The dissent went almost to the opposite extreme by arguing that the statute should be subjected to strict scrutiny. Both the majority and the dissent went to great lengths to argue that their opposing conclusions were dictated by Justice Scalia's Heller opinion, and both of them are demonstrably wrong about that. Taken as a whole, the Heller opinion is exquisitely equivocal about issues like the ones raised in Kolbe. The large doctrinal space left open by Heller is inevitably being filled according to the policy views of judges on the lower courts. Those views are no doubt influenced to some extent by judges' opinions about the desirability of the gun control regulations they review. In a distinct and more important sense, the approach of the judges is determined by their views about the value of the Second Amendment and the right it secures. Heller contains a lot of rhetoric supporting those, like the Kolbe dissenters, who place a high value on Second Amendment rights. But that rhetoric is undermined by a series of pro-regulation dicta in the opinion. The Supreme Court has declined to back its rhetoric up with any decisions actually rejecting the dismissive approach adopted by the Kolbe majority and many other courts. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia and now by Justice Gorsuch, has strongly objected to the Court's passive acceptance of such decisions, but there is no sign yet that the Court is prepared to recognize any Second Amendment rights beyond the narrow holding in Heller. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University School of Law, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 17-13: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029650 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029650 Shelf Number: 149890 Keywords: Assault WeaponsGun Control PolicyGun-Related ViolenceGuns and CrimeSecond Amendment |
Author: Stevenson, Drury Title: The Urgent Need for Legal Scholarship on Firearm Policy Summary: Restrictions on federal funding for research pertaining to firearm policy have stymied academic inquiry by social science and public health researchers for over two decades. As a result, most researchers agree that our public discourse about this urgent issue is woefully under-informed, or even ill-informed, on both sides of the debate. Legal academia, which does not operate under the same grant-writing regime as most other disciplines, can and should help fill this gap in researching and theorizing the unresolved questions related to firearm policy. In fact, theoretical development and clarification from the legal academy is often a necessary antecedent for empirical researchers in other fields to frame and develop their own studies properly, especially about the real-world effects of competing policy approaches to firearms. This Essay sets forth a plea to law professors to undertake much-needed research in this area and offers suggestions of understudied topics with low entry barriers for legal commentators. Recommendations for interdisciplinary collaborative efforts round out this discussion. A brief conclusion reaches the endgame issue: ensuring access to the work we produce. Details: Unpublished paper, 2019. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3374018 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3374018 Shelf Number: 155841 Keywords: Firearms Gun Control Gun Policy Second Amendment |