> > re: > >> *The Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms >> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1946885> >>> * >>> *Stanford Law Review, Vol. 64, 2012* >>> Joseph >>> Blocher<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=734237> >>> >> > It's "interesting". Details seem to be "spun" - e.g. > 40 - 50% of US homes own a firearm, that's 120 - 150 million people > http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#5 > > *A new Gallup poll of self-reported gun ownership shows that 47% of > American adults have a > firearm<http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx> > somewhere > in their household, * > * > http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/american-gun-ownership-at-highest-level-in-almost-20-years/ > * > * > * > yet the paper says, "a large majority of Americans choose not to keep > guns in their homes." (p 103 citing a Philip J. Cook, et al paper) > > As to working against the right not to keep/bear, "But some > legislatures are now contemplating or even doing something quite different: > engaging in what might be called “antigun control” and superseding private > ordering by making it difficult or illegal for private parties to keep guns > out of their homes, off their property, and other- wise out of their actual > or constructive possession. Perhaps most radically, some have proposed or > enacted laws requiring citizens to keep guns in their homes." (p 105) The > footnote for this refers to > > "Mandatory gun possession is not widespread, but some communities have > either proposed or passed laws embracing it. Kennesaw, Georgia, is the most > famous example—it requires all citizens to keep guns and ammunition in > their homes.188 Similar laws have been passed in towns in Idaho, Kansas, > Pennsylvania, and Utah." (p 137) > > The author doesn't note any exemptions to those laws - my memory is that > the Kennesaw law did have exemptions - and I found: > "Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it > was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious > objectors to the list of those exempt." > http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm > The author implies there are no exemptions: "So long as the laws are > strictly symbolic and people are not actually threatened with punishment > for failing to keep guns in their homes, then one could argue that the > right to defend oneself by not possessing weapons has not been infringed." > (p 139) > > Back to right not to keep/bear - "Many others have adopted “forced entry” > or “bring your gun to work” laws, which require private parties—usually > businesses—to allow guns on their property." (p 105) > Which raises a legal terminology question (which I'd like someone to > answer) - if a customer or worker is on business premises - does the > business (or its owner) have possession or constructive possession? > > The tone of the article seems, to me, to be figuring out how businesses > and property owners can exclude concealed carry from their premises - but > the author says, "The purpose of this Article is to test the strengths > and weaknesses of an idea, not to advocate without qualification for the > recognition of a new constitutional right." (p 107) > > That's all I'm going to discuss from now. I'm still thinking about this > article. > > --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.
