"Back to the Basics: Restoration of Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
through the National Reciprocity Act of 2011" (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2126356 )
University of Miami Business Law Review, Forthcoming (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/PIP_Journal.cfm?pip_jrnl=313645 )
JULIE CHRISTIE MORGAN (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1879387 ),
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Email: [email protected]
This note discusses the evolution of state and federal firearms
regulation, specifically the states’ role in the governance of firearms
control. The note provides an in-depth analysis of the evolution of
Second Amendment jurisprudence. The note will focus on the traditional
application of the Second Amendment to state and federal government and
will analyze the effects of the Heller and McDonald United States
Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Additionally, this note provides a detailed analysis of state concealed
weapons permit laws. Currently, the United States is divided into three
types of concealed carry laws. This note will attempt to explain the
major differences of these state regulatory regimes as well as highlight
the number of states that participate in each regime. Further, this note
will attempt to explain what effects if any, the decisions of Heller and
McDonald may have on concealed carry laws, specifically whether it is
constitutional for states to place limitations on the right to carry a
firearm. Further, this note will describe the National Reciprocity Act
of 2011 and the current controversy associated with the Act including
whether the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 is a proper
exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power and whether the Act is
constitutional.
Finally, this note provides an oversight of the interplay between the
Commerce Clause and firearms regulation and will analyze whether the
National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 is a proper exercise of
Congress’ Commerce Clause power and whether the Act is constitutional.
As a final point, this note will discuss whether the National
Reciprocity Act of 2011 or a similar type of legislation is an essential
means of protection against state infringement of the individual right
to keep and bear arms.
****************************************************************************************************************
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.
