scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted Content

Principles and Passions: The Intersection of Abortion and Gun Rights

TL;DR: The authors explores the parallels between the right of armed self-defense and the woman's right to abortion and demonstrates that the theories and principles advanced to support the abortion right intersect substantially with an individual's right of self-defence.
Abstract: In this article, Professor Nicholas J. Johnson explores the parallels between the right of armed self-defense and the woman's right to abortion. Professor Johnson demonstrates that the theories and principles advanced to support the abortion right intersect substantially with an individual's right to armed self-defense. Professor Johnson uncovers common ground between the gun and abortion rights - two rights that have come to symbolize society's deepest social and cultural divisions - divisions that prompt many to embrace the abortion right while summarily rejecting the gun right. Unreflective disparagement of the gun right, he argues, threatens the vitality of the abortion choice theories with which gun-rights arguments intersect and suggests that society's most difficult questions are settled not on principle, but by people's passions.
Citations
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: The Thirteenth Amendment provides a textual basis for a right to abortion and is both libertarian and egalitarian, because the paradigmatic violation deprives its victims of both liberty and equality.
Abstract: The Thirteenth Amendment provides a textual basis for a right to abortion. The Thirteenth Amendment is both libertarian and egalitarian, because the paradigmatic violation deprives its victims of both liberty and equality. Slavery compels some private individuals to serve others, and it does so as part of a larger societal pattern of imposing such servitude on a particular caste of persons. Compulsory pregnancy involves the same twofold injury. Since the amendment reaches far enough to forbid either of these injuries standing alone, a fortiori it forbids laws that inflict both of them at once.

16 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: Funk examines unique characteristics of "Saturday Night Specials" which are said to make them more appropriate for prohibition than other firearms and makes the case that a ban on low-cost handguns may amount to unconstitutional discrimination against the poor or minorities as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Ever since the beginning of the modern gun control debate, in the 1960s, prohibitions on small, inexpensive handguns -- so-called "Saturday Night Specials" -- has been a central issue. In this article, Markus Funk examines unique characteristics of "Saturday Night Specials" which are said to make them more appropriate for prohibition than other firearms. In addition, he makes the case that ban on low-cost handguns may amount to unconstitutional discrimination against the poor or minorities. A slightly different version of this article was originally published in 1995 in volume 8 of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, beginning at page 764; this article is reprinted with permission.

15 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a list of articles about the Second Amendment or gun control that have been published in law reviews, and present a review of the most relevant articles.
Abstract: This article lists articles about the Second Amendment or gun control that have been published in law reviews.

9 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The origins of an Anglo-American right were discussed in the book "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an American Right" by Joyce Lee Malcolm as mentioned in this paper, published by Harvard University Press.
Abstract: Book review of "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right." By Joyce Lee Malcolm. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1994.

8 citations

Journal Article

7 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors collected data from 170 U.S. cities with a population of at least 100,000 and coded the cities for the presence of 19 major categories of firearms restriction, including both state and city-level restrictions.
Abstract: What effects do gun control restrictions and gun prevalence have on rates of violence and crime? Data were gathered for all 170 U.S. cities with a 1980 population of at least 100,000. The cities were coded for the presence of 19 major categories of firearms restriction, including both state- and city-level restrictions. Multiple indirect indicators of gun prevalence levels were measured and models of city violence rates were estimated using two-stage least-squares methods. The models covered all major categories of intentional violence and crime which frequently involve guns: homicide, suicide, fatal gun accidents, robbery, and aggravated assaults, as well as rape. Findings indicate that (1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. There were, however, some possible exceptions to this last conclusion—of 108 assessments of effects of different gun laws on different types of violence, 7 indicated good support, and another 11 partial support, for the hypothesis of gun control efficacy.

245 citations


"Principles and Passions: The Inters..." refers background in this paper

  • ...[308] See Kleck & Gertz, supra note 32, at 179-80; Kleck, supra note 292, at 12-47; Gary Kleck & E....

    [...]

  • ...That exercise would be complicated by work such as John Lott's and Gary Kleck's arguing that individual firearms and armed self-defenders produce a net benefit.[308](p....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In a typical law school curriculum, for example, the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are integrated into an introductory survey course on ''Constitutional Law'' and the Sixth, Eighth, and much of the Fifth are taught in ''Criminal Procedure'' as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: To many Americans, the Bill of Rights stands as the centerpiece of our constitutional order-and yet constitutional scholars lack an adequate account of it. Instead of being studied holistically, the Bill has been chopped up into discrete chunks of text, with each bit examined in isolation. In a typical law school curriculum, for example, the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are integrated into an introductory survey course on \"Constitutional Law\"; the Sixth, Eighth, and much of the Fifth are taught in \"Criminal Procedure\"; the Seventh is covered in \"Civil Procedure\"; the takings clause is featured in \"Property\"; the Fourth becomes a course unto itself, or is perhaps folded into \"Criminal Procedure\" or \"Evidence\" (because of the judicially-created exclusionary rule); and the Second and Third are ignored.' When we turn from law school classrooms to legal scholarship, a similar pattern emerges. Each clause is typically considered separately, and some amendments-again, the Second and Third-are generally ignored by main-

96 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

69 citations


"Principles and Passions: The Inters..." refers background in this paper

  • ...While Scalia's own approach to constitutional interpretation is subject to criticisms of inconsistency,[138] his critique usefully highlights the difficulty of Estrich's reliance on the theme of fundamental rights that transcend politics....

    [...]

Journal Article
TL;DR: One of the best known pieces of American popular art in this century is the New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg presenting a map of the United States as seen by a New Yorker, and to continue the map analogy, consider in this context the Bill of Rights.
Abstract: For too long, most members of the legal academy have treated the Second Amendment as the equivalent of an embarrassing relative, whose mention brings a quick change of subject to other, more respectable, family members. That will no longer do. It is time for the Second Amendment to enter full scale into the consciousness of the legal academy. Adapted from the authors essay in the from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659.

68 citations


"Principles and Passions: The Inters..." refers background in this paper

  • ...[128] See Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L....

    [...]

  • ...Sanford Levinson cautions that it might be painfully short sighted to discard the constraint on the state that individual arms provide.[128] William Van Alstyne emphasizes the Framers' vision of an armed citizenry as a component of the security of a "free state" which he points out is quite distinct from the security of "the State....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: AlVIANI et al. as mentioned in this paper proposed a restrictive permit requirement designed and administered to exclude more than 99% of the civilian population from handgun ownership, which was challenged in the United States Supreme Court.
Abstract: LL.B. 1966, Yale Law School. Member of the California, District of Columbia, Missouri and United States Supreme Court Bars. Partner, Benenson, Kates and Hardy (San Francisco office). Of counsel, O'Brien & Hallisey, San Francisco, California. Mr. Kates authored one of the petitions for certiorari in Quilici v. City of Morton Grove. — Ed. The author wishes to thank the following for their assistance: Professors William Van Alstyne (Law, Duke University Law School), Roy Wortman (History, Kenyon College), and Stephen Halbrook (Philosophy, George Mason University); Dr. Joyce Malcolm (Law Fellow, Harvard Law School), Dr. David I. Caplan, Mr. Willis Hannawalt (Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, San Francisco), and Mr. David Hardy (Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Interior Department, Washington, D.C.). Of course, the responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation is the author's alone. 1 Such legislation could, for example, take the form of a restrictive permit requirement designed and administered to exclude more than 99% of the civilian population from handgun ownership. On the constitutionality of restrictive permit systems, see notes 253-54 infra and accompanying text. 2 See J. ALVIANI & W. DRAKE, HANDGUN CONTROL: ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES 48-54 (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1975) (quoting resolutions to that effect from: The Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church, Common Cause, National Alliance for Safer Cities, Union of America Hebrew Congregations and Unitarian Universalist Association). [Copyright © 1983 Michigan Law Review. Originally published as 82 MICH. L. REV. 204-273 (1983). For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Hein & Co., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209; 716-882-2600 or 800-828-7571.]

62 citations