scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Second Amendment Sanctuaries: A Legally Dubious Protest Movement.

01 Dec 2020-Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics (SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA)-Vol. 48, pp 105-111
TL;DR: The origins and spread of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement are assessed in this paper, where localities pass ordinances or resolutions that declare their jurisdiction's view that proposed or enacted state (or federal) gun safety laws are unconstitutional and therefore, local officials will not implement or enforce them.
Abstract: This article assesses the origins and spread of the Second Amendment sanctuary movement in which localities pass ordinances or resolutions that declare their jurisdiction's view that proposed or enacted state (or federal) gun safety laws are unconstitutional and therefore, local officials will not implement or enforce them. While it is important to assess Second Amendment sanctuaries from a legal perspective, it is equally as important to understand them in the context of a broader protest movement against any efforts to strengthen gun laws. As the gun violence prevention movement has gained strength across the United States, particularly at the state level, gun rights enthusiasts have turned to Second Amendment sanctuaries in order to create a counter narrative to the increasing political power of gun safety. By passing these ordinances or resolutions, local officials legitimize and fuel Second Amendment absolutism which poses real risks to public safety and democracy.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the first year of the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) as discussed by the authors, 109 petitions were filed in Colorado, of which 61 were granted for a temporary ERPO and 49 for a full (year-long) ERPO.
Abstract: Background Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are a relatively new type of law that are being considered or implemented in many states in the United States. Colorado's law went into effect on January 1, 2020, after significant controversy and concern over potential misuse of the law to confiscate weapons; many (n = 37 of 64) counties declared themselves "2nd Amendment (2A) sanctuaries" and said they would not enforce the law. Here, reviewed the patterns of use of the law during its first year. Methods We obtained all court records for ERPO petitions filed between January 1 and December 31, 2020. Data elements were abstracted by trained staff using a standardized guide. We calculated the proportion of petitions that were approved or denied/dismissed, identified cases of obvious misuse, and examined patterns by 2A county status. Finding and results In 2020, 109 ERPO petitions were filed in Colorado; of these, 61 were granted for a temporary ERPO and 49 for a full (year-long) ERPO. Most petitions filed by law enforcement officers were granted (85%), compared to only 15% of petitions filed by family or household members. Of the 37 2A sanctuary counties, 24% had at least one petition filed, versus 48% of non-2A sanctuary counties. Across the 2A counties, there were 1.52 ERPOs filed per 100,000 population, compared to 2.05 ERPOs filed per 100,000 in non-2A counties. There were 4 cases of obvious law misuse; none of those petitions resulted in an ERPO or firearm confiscation. Conclusion State-level studies suggest ERPOs may prevent firearm injuries. Robust implementation, however, is critical for maximal effect. Understanding ERPO experiences and challenges can inform policy creation and enaction in other states, including identifying how best to address concerns and facilitate evaluation.

3 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The suicide prevention collaborative of El Paso County may be more effective in preventing suicide as they are specific to local issues, sensitive to local culture, and informed by local data, community members, and stakeholders as mentioned in this paper .
Abstract: Abstract Colorado has consistently had one of the highest rates of suicide in the United States, and El Paso County has the highest number of suicide and firearm-related suicide deaths within the state. Community-based solutions like those of the Suicide Prevention Collaborative of El Paso County may be more effective in preventing suicide as they are specific to local issues, sensitive to local culture, and informed by local data, community members, and stakeholders.

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) as discussed by the authors was introduced by Gov. Eric Greitens and passed by the Missouri Legislature in June 2021, and many Missouri law enforcement agencies, including the Missouri Sheriff's Association, oppose it.
Abstract: Abstract In June 2021, Missouri passed the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” (SAPA). Though SAPA passed easily and had gubernatorial support, many Missouri law enforcement agencies, including the Missouri Sheriff’s Association, oppose it. Missing from this policy conversation, and deserving of analysis, is the voice of Missouri citizens. Using qualitative interview data and survey data, we explored what if anything Missouri gun owners knew about SAPA and what they perceived its effects would be on gun-related murders, suicides, gun thefts, and mass shootings. Most Missouri gun owners had not heard about SAPA and were ambivalent about its potential effect on gun safety outcomes. Our findings also indicate that respondents’ attitudes toward SAPA and the impact of such policy on safety is driven by gun ownership (i.e., primary versus living in a household with firearms), partisan identification, and attitudes toward government firearm regulation.

1 citations

References
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, a functional account of sub-federal immigration regulation is provided, and a framework for federal and state lawmakers intended to restrain their impulses to preempt legislation by lower levels of government, and to create incentives for cooperative ventures in immigration regulation.
Abstract: The proliferation of state and local regulation designed to control immigrant movement has generated media attention and high-profile lawsuits in the last year. Proponents and opponents of these measures share one basic assumption with deep roots in constitutional doctrine and practice - immigration control is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. As a result, assessments of this important trend have failed to explain why state and local measures are arising in large numbers, and why the uniformity both sides seek is neither achievable nor desirable. I argue that is time to come to a modus vivendi regarding participation by all levels of government in the management of migration. To do so, I provide a functional account of sub-federal immigration regulation and demonstrate how the federal-state-local dynamic operates as an integrated system to manage contemporary immigration. The primary function states and localities play is to integrate immigrants into the body politic and thus to bring the country to terms with demographic change. This process cannot be managed by a single sovereign, and it sometimes depends on states and localities adopting positions in tension with federal policy. Given these dynamics, I offer a reformulation of existing federalism presumptions. These will not be primarily for application by courts, though courts should abandon constitutional or strong field and obstacle preemption theories in immigration cases. Instead, I offer a framework for federal and state lawmakers intended to restrain their impulses to preempt legislation by lower levels of government, and to create incentives for cooperative ventures in immigration regulation. Counterintuitively, the changes wrought by globalization demand strong institutions beneath the national level. Immigration highlights this convergence of the transnational and the local. Only by assimilating our understandings of immigration federalism to this realization can we explain and harness the value of state and local regulation.

81 citations

Journal Article
Reva B. Siegel1
TL;DR: Heller's decision in 2008 was viewed as the "triumph of originalism" as mentioned in this paper, and was viewed by many as the beginning of the "culture war" over the right to keep and bear arms.
Abstract: We should find the lost Second Amendment, broaden its scope and determine that it affords the right to arm a state militia and also the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. --Robert Sprecher, ABA prize winner, 1965 (1) [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. ... What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. --Justice Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 (2) The Court's announcement in 2008 that the Second Amendment, (3) ratified in 1791, protects an individual's right to bear arms against federal gun control regulation was long awaited by many, long feared by others. What produced this ruling and what might it reveal about the character of our constitutional order? For many, constitutional law changed because the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the understandings of the Americans who ratified it: Heller (4) marks the "Triumph of Originalism." (5) Others saw the case very differently, observing that the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the convictions of the twentieth-century gun-rights movement and so had demonstrated the ascendancy of the living Constitution. (6) The two accounts of the decision stand in some tension. One views Heller's authority as emanating from the deliberations of eighteenth-century Americans, while the other views the constitutional debates of twentieth-century Americans as decisive. What kind of authority did the Court exercise when it struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban as violating the Second Amendment? On the originalism view, the Court is merely enforcing the judgments of eighteenth-century Americans, who, in an epochal act of constitutional lawmaking, ratified a Bill of Rights that forbids handgun bans such as the District of Columbia's. On the popular constitutionalism view, the Court itself is deciding whether handgun bans are consistent with the best understanding of our constitutional tradition; the determination is made in the present and responds to the beliefs and values of living Americans who identify with the commitments and traditions of their forbears. In the first case, the Court stands above the fray, disinterested, merely executing the commands of Americans long deceased. In the second case, the Court is normatively engaged in matters about which living Americans passionately disagree, enforcing its own convictions about the best understanding of a living constitutional tradition to which Heller contributes. On this account, Heller, through its originalism, participates in what Justice Scalia refers to in his Lawrence dissent as "the culture war." (7) Relating these two competing accounts of the opinion, this Comment shows how Heller's originalism enforces understandings of the Second Amendment that were forged in the late twentieth century through popular constitutionalism. It situates originalism's claim to ground judicial decisionmaking outside of politics in the constitutional politics of the late twentieth century, and demonstrates how Heller respects claims and compromises forged in social movement conflict over the right to bear arms in the decades after Brown v. Board of Education. (8) The Comment offers this reading of the opinion in two steps. Part I begins by examining the temporal locus of authority in the Heller opinion itself. In Heller, the dissenters insist the Second Amendment is concerned primarily with militia and military matters, whereas the majority reads the amendment as codifying an individual right of self-defense that enables citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against crime. …

59 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The authors in this article provided an analysis of the characteristics, implementation, and outcomes of gun removals conducted under Connecticut's risk warrant law during the period of October 1999 through June 2013.
Abstract: I INTRODUCTION Developing practical, effective, and legally sustainable policies to separate firearms from people at risk of harming themselves or others presents a potentially important, but challenging, public health opportunity for gun violence prevention in the United States. Risk-based, temporary, preemptive gun removal is a legal tool that four states--Connecticut, (1) Indiana, (2) California, (3) and Washington (4)--have adopted, and which has recently attracted considerable interest among policymakers in other jurisdictions. (5) To date, there has been little empirical scrutiny of these laws in practice and there are important unanswered questions about how they work: What are the legal and logistical barriers to implementing risk-based gun removal laws? Do they target the right people? Are the laws fair? Do they actually help reduce gun deaths? In 1999, following a highly publicized mass shooting, (6) Connecticut became the first state to pass a law authorizing police to temporarily remove guns from individuals when there is "probable cause to believe ... that a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals[.]" (7) Connecticut's innovative statute established the legal practice of preemptive gun removal as a civil court action based on a risk warrant, a process that neither requires nor generates a record of criminal or mental health adjudication as its predicate. (8) Our research study provides an analysis of the characteristics, implementation, and outcomes of gun removals conducted under Connecticut's risk warrant law during the period of October 1999 through June 2013. (9) This article summarizes key features of the study in an effort to inform other states that are considering the adoption of similar gun-seizure laws. Part II sketches the relevant policy landscape in order to demonstrate that point-of-purchase background checks are a necessary but insufficient component of a strategy to reduce gun violence in the United States, and that risk-based preemptive gun removal schemes provide a complementary policy to bridge the gap. Part III briefly recounts the history of enactment and gradual implementation of Connecticut's risk-based gun removal law, beginning with the high-profile homicide that drove public opinion to support the law. Part IV describes our research study's quantitative and qualitative methods and data sources. Part V presents the results of the study. It first describes the characteristics of gun removal cases in Connecticut. Next, it summarizes views of stakeholders regarding the effectiveness and fairness of gun removal, as well as particular challenges faced in implementing the risk warrant law. It then analyzes suicides committed by the individuals from whom firearms had been seized to determine whether the policy saved lives, and concludes with an estimate of the number of gun removal cases that are necessary to avert one suicide. Part VI summarizes the findings and draws key policy implications. Finally, Part VII renders the study's conclusion. II THE POLICY LANDSCAPE: THE LIMITS OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THE POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT ROLE OF RISK-BASED PREEMPTIVE GUN REMOVAL LAWS Intentional gun violence in the United States remains a daunting public health problem--diverse in its surrounding circumstances, complex in its causal pathways, and far reaching in its social and economic consequences. (10) How to solve the problem remains the subject of a contentious and partisan political debate, pitting public safety interests against the Second Amendment right. (11) The 1994 Brady Law's (12) requirement of point-of-purchase background checks for firearm sales from federally licensed dealers has long been the mainstay of federal and state efforts to prevent gun violence. This is arguably a necessary but insufficient policy approach. (13) Wide variation in the operational criteria for gun restrictions across states, inconsistencies in local policies and practices that apply these criteria to individual cases, and major gaps in state authorities' reporting of gun-disqualifying records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), all contribute to inefficient identification of people who should not have guns. …

48 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the Second Amendment does not protect those who threaten others by negligently or recklessly wielding firearms, and what line separates constitutionally legitimate gun displays from threatening activities is defined.
Abstract: Does the Second Amendment protect those who threaten others by negligently or recklessly wielding firearms? What line separates constitutionally legitimate gun displays from threatening activities ...

2 citations