The Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms"
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 64, 2012 (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/PIP_Journal.cfm?pip_jrnl=82829 )
JOSEPH BLOCHER (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=734237 ), Duke
Law School
Email: [email protected]
Sometimes a constitutional right to do a particular thing is
accompanied by a right not to do that thing. The First Amendment, for
example, guarantees both the right to speak and the right not to speak.
This Article asks whether the Second Amendment should likewise be read
to encompass both the right to keep or bear arms for self-defense and
the inverse right to protect oneself by avoiding them, and what
practical implications, if any, the latter right would have. The Article
concludes - albeit with some important qualifications - that a right not
to keep or bear arms is implied by what the Supreme Court has called the
“core” and “central component” of the Second Amendment: self-defense,
especially in the home. Recognizing such a right might call into
question the constitutionality of the growing number of “antigun control”
laws that make it difficult or illegal for private individuals to avoid
having guns in their actual or constructive possession.
****************************************************************************************************************
Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M.
o- 651-523-2142
Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037)
f- 651-523-2236
St. Paul, MN 55113-1235
c- 612-865-7956
[email protected]
http://law.hamline.edu/constitutional_law/joseph_olson.html
_______________________________________________
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.
