Joseph E. Olson writes: > "Unintended Consequences: The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the > Second Amendment in District of Columbia V. Heller Could Water-Down > Fourth Amendment Rights" ( > http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1654543&partid=47512&did=81157&eid=104734113 > ) > > > GEORGE M. DERY ( > http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=338925&partid=47512&did=81157&eid=104734113 > ), California State University, Fullerton > Email: [email protected] > > > This article analyzes Heller, the Supreme Court?s recent case > considering whether to view the Second Amendment?s right to keep and > bear arms as a collective right premised on maintaining militias, or as > an individual right. Heller held that the Second Amendment codified an > individual right unconnected with service in the militia. This article > does not analyze the Second Amendment or the precedent interpreting it. > Instead, this work examines the potential that Heller, in expanding the > right to keep and bear arms, might inadvertently corner the Court into > limiting Fourth Amendment rights due to concerns for police safety. > Specifically, this article considers Heller?s potential erosion of > Fourth Amendment freedoms in the contexts of street encounters, searches > incident to arrest, and officer intrusions into the home.
This is not about funding - but rather the implications of the last sentence in this Abstract. The author is concerned that "because of the promotion of the individual right to keep and bear arms" that police will find "themselves less protected by gun control legislation, may resort to self-help by committing more frequent or more intrusive searches or seizures." And so the Court, considering the dangers to officers, may not continue current Fourth Amendment protections. [quotes from p 3] With only a small leap of interpretation, it appears that the author feels that prior to Heller that criminals limited the posession of firearms on themselves and in their homes - and so the police faced little risk (he does mention Terry stop/frisk [p 1] so he understands that criminals don't always obey the law.) Now, after Heller, he seems to conclude, criminals will avail themselves of the RKBA and substantially increase their posession of firearms, and hence the risk to police increases substantially. If I'm jumping to an incorrect interpretation, I'd appreciate someone pointing out my error. I may be biased by the number friends of mine who feel strongly that "if only there was a law" against criminals having guns, then we'd be a lot safer. --henry schaffer > ... _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
