Kwon R. Bill

Bio: Kwon R. Bill is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Justice (ethics) & Scholarship. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 4 citations.

The Hidden Second Amendment Framework within District of Columbia v. Heller

Abstract: In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court squarely confronted the meaning of the Second Amendment and held that it protected an individual right to keep and bear a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. Simultaneously, however, the Heller Court refused to set a framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims, leaving the issue open for another day. This issue is crucial: since Heller, lower federal courts have been deluged by Second Amendment claims based on the case, yet such courts have very little guidance as to how to review such claims. This Comment argues that courts have more guidance than they may believe. Using the text of Heller and the constitutional jurisprudence of the Heller majority, this Comment predicts the Second Amendment framework that the Heller majority has in mind or will embrace. Specifically, it articulates a two-pronged test: whether the challenged regulation (1) falls within the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment, and (2) satisfies a deferential form of strict scrutiny.This Comment received the 2010 Morgan Prize for most outstanding student note submitted to the Vanderbilt Law Review.

Hidden or on the Hip: The Right(s) to Carry after Heller

Abstract: Although the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v Heller singled out bans on the concealed carry of handguns as presumptively constitutional, laws that prevent citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense unless they can show “good cause” are vulnerable under this decision At least two cases would put the question squarely before the Supreme Court At issue is whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense, whether states can require citizens to show cause before exercising this right, and whether states can ban one outlet for the right to carry if they allow the other

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: Precipitating the World’s Most Dangerous Game

Abstract: After Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School on the morning of December 14, 2012, twenty-six people, many of them children, were killed, with more injured. Before that day, Lanza’s mother bought a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, model XM15-E2S, for the purpose of giving it to her son. The weapon was produced by Bushmaster Firearms, marketed by Remington Outdoor Company, distributed by Camfour, Inc., and sold to civilians by Riverview Sales, Inc. In their thirty-three-count amended complaint, the victims and families of the Sandy Hook Shooting attempted to use the predicate exemption and negligent entrustment exceptions to the qualified civil immunity granted to the gun industry by the passage of 2005’s Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to obtain relief for the wrongful death of their loved ones. Their claims became Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, where the court found that the harm caused was solely the result of criminal misuse of a weapon, falling within the “broad immunity provided by the PLCAA.” Despite the fact that the weapon was intended for military use and has little utility for hunting or self-defense, the court found that the placement of this item in the stream of commerce did not create a harm remediable despite the dangerousness of the product. Were it not for the PLCAA, the plaintiffs may have prevailed on their claim. When an inherently dangerous item, like a military-grade assault rifle, is able to exist in the market virtually free from regulations and the manufacturers, sellers, and advertisers are immune from liability for the harms inherent in the nature of the product, the purpose of tort law – to compensate for harms caused by the actions of another for the purpose of producing efficient outcomes and deterring aberrant behavior with the ultimate goal of creating a safer society – is obfuscated. The PLCAA was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to the advent of mass tort gun liability suits brought by municipalities to curb the illegal practices of local arms dealers and mitigate the harms levied on their communities by gun violence. Although none of these suits were successful, the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights lobbies felt sufficiently threatened that they asked for and received broad immunity to curb potential claims. Through an investigation of pre-PLCAA litigation, the PLCAA, and the post-PLCAA landscape, it becomes evident that the PLCAA is overbroad legislation that impermissibly shields producers of an inherently dangerous product from liability.

The Assault Weapons Ban - Politics, the Second Amendment, and the Country's Continued Willingness to Sacrifice Innocent Lives for "Freedom'

Abstract: So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice, to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: "From my cold dead hands!" (1) I. INTRODUCTION The Assault Weapons Ban (2) became the law of the land in 1994 and just ten years later, in 2004, the ban ended through a sunset provision when Congress decided not to reenact the bill. From 1994 to 2004, the ban prohibited the possession, transfer, and manufacture (3) of certain semiautomatic assault firearms--such firearms are the primary weapons used in mass shootings. (4) In 1994, the ban had major public support and was enacted with the purpose of reducing those shootings. Critics of the ban asserted that the law was a knee-jerk reaction to "several high-profile shootings in the years preceding the law's enactment." (5) This note analyzes the flaws in the now-expired Assault Weapons Ban and proposes that a new assault weapons ban be enacted without the fundamental weaknesses of the initial ban. (6) Part II looks at recent mass shootings America. Part III explores the definition of an "assault weapon." Part IV looks to what prompted Congress to act when it passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Part V inspects the major issues with the Assault Weapons Ban and looks at the immense power the gun lobby has over our elected officials. Part VI looks to what individual states have done by enacting their own assault weapons bans. (7) Within that part there is also an explanation why state-by-state legislation is not a sufficient solution to the glaring problem of mass shootings in this country, and why federal legislation is a necessary step towards solving this quandary. Part VII suggests what a renewed Assault Weapons Ban would have to address in order to be a successful piece of legislation. Lastly, part VIII of this note explains why a renewed Assault Weapons Ban would not be a violation of Second Amendment rights under the analysis set forth in the 2008 United State Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (8) and the 2010 decision McDonald v. City of Chicago. (9) II. MASS SHOOTINGS IN AMERICA A "mass shooting" has been defined as "[t]he discharging of firearms multiple times by one or more parties into a group of unarmed victims." (10) On July 20, 2012, James Holmes walked into a theater in Aurora, Colorado during a highly publicized and newly released film, tossed two gas canisters, and then opened fire on the patrons. (11) Holmes proceeded to kill twelve and wound fifty-eight more, and his rampage stands as one of the worst mass shootings in American history. (12) That evening, Holmes carried with him two semiautomatic pistols, a semiautomatic assault-style rifle, and a shotgun. (13) Holmes also had with him a drum for the assault rifle which granted him the capability to fire one-hundred rounds before the weapon required reloading. (14) On December 14, 2012, at approximately 9:30 a.m., Adam Lanza fired through a windowpane on his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School. (15) Mr. Lanza then proceeded to shoot and kill twenty children and seven adults with a .223 caliber Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle. (16) Mr. Lanza fired "dozens and dozens" of rounds. (17) He was able to get off so many shots so quickly by using thirty-round magazines--attaching them to his assault rifle. (18) Each of the victims was shot at least twice, and some were hit with as many as eleven bullets. (19) Mr. Lanza ended the carnage by taking his own life as the police closed in. (20) Unfortunately for America, these incidents are not isolated ones--they are but two of the many mass shootings that have taken place in this country in the last thirty years. (21) The killings at the McDonald's in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, (22) the horror at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999, (23) and the devastation at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, in 200724 were among the most deadly rampages in recent history, but by no means comprise an exhaustive list. …