Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Can Lethal Self-Defense, Even Against Threats of Death, Serious Bodily Injury,
Rape, and Kidnapping, Be Made a Crime?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_31-2009_06_06.shtml#1243963935
The [1]Seventh Circuit's Second Amendment non-incorporation decision
so suggests:
Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in their homes
must surrender rather than fight back -- in other words, that
burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self
help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a
handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself
be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects
only the interests of law-abiding citizens. See United States v.
Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional right to
have guns ready to hand when distributing illegal drugs).
Our hypothetical is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Self-defense
is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a defense that many
states have modified by requiring people to retreat when possible,
and to use non-lethal force when retreat is not possible. An
obligation to avoid lethal force in self-defense might imply an
obligation to use pepper spray rather than handguns. A modification
of the self-defense defense may or may not be in the best interest
of public safety -- whether guns deter or facilitate crime is an
empirical question -- but it is difficult to argue that legislative
evaluation of which weapons are appropriate for use in self-defense
has been out of the people�s hands since 1868.
Note that the court's argument isn't simply that lethal self-defense
could be constitutionally limited to situations where it's genuinely
necessary to protect against (say) death, serious injury, rape, or
kidnapping. Rather, the argument must be that lethal self-defense
could be constitutionally barred altogether. Otherwise the court's
argument that "That decision would imply that no one is entitled to
keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would
itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment
protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens" wouldn't work:
The argument rests on the assumption that guns would be unusable to
"law-abiding citizens" because "[lethal] self-defense would itself be
a crime."
Likewise, the argument is not only that certain tools for lethal
self-defense could be barred. That's the conclusion that the panel is
trying to reach by arguing (I repeat) that lethal self-defense could
itself be made a crime. (I read "self-defense" as meaning "lethal
self-defense" in context.)
Now not all bad laws, even evil laws, are unconstitutional laws. And
the lower court cases (all of them pre-Heller, except Brett, N. v.
Community Unit School Dist No. 303, 2009 WL 424546 (N.D. Ill. 2009))
are indeed split on whether there is a constitutional right to
self-defense. But it seems to me that the case for such a right --
including a right of lethal self-defense when necessary to prevent
death, serious bodily injury, rape, and kidnapping -- is very strong,
even under the narrowest accepted test for recognizing constitutional
rights (the Glucksberg test, from the decision that rejected a claimed
right to assisted suicide). For a past on-blog debate on the subject,
see [2]this post chain.
References
1.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-4241_002.pdf
2. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1216147576.shtml
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
