The Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms
01 Jan 2012-Stanford Law Review (School of Law, Stanford University)-Vol. 64, Iss: 1, pp 1-54
TL;DR: In this article, the Second Amendment should be read to encompass both the right to keep or bear arms for self-defense and the inverse right to protect oneself by avoiding arms, and what practical implications, if any, the latter right would have.
Abstract: Sometimes a constitutional right to do a particular thing is accompanied by a right not to do that thing. The First Amendment, for example, guarantees both the right to speak and the right not to speak This Article asks whether the Second Amendment should likewise be read to encompass both the right to keep or bear arms for self-defense and the inverse right to protect oneself by avoiding arms, and what practical implications, if any, the latter right would have. The Article concludes albeit with some important qualifications that a right not to keep or bear arms is implied by what the Supreme Court has called the "core" and "central component" of the Second Amendment: self-defense, especially in the home. Recognizing such a right might call into question the constitutionality of the growing number of "anti-gun control" laws that make it difficult or illegal for private individuals to avoid having guns in their actual or constructive possession. Language: en
TL;DR: In the context of public safety realignment in California, this article reviewed early research focused on the statewide effect of Realignment on recidivism, which has produced mixed findings depending on the measure of recrievability applied.
Abstract: California’s 2011 Public Safety Realignment created an unprecedented policy experiment by transferring the authority over lower-level felony offenders from the state correctional system to fifty-eight county jail and probation systems. While centered in California, these changes are reflective of an ongoing national conversation about the appropriate level of government at which to focus crime control efforts. In this article, we first situate Realignment in criminological and sociolegal literatures, showing how the reform offers opportunities to further inquiry as to the effectiveness of a wide variety of correctional strategies, implementation, and local variation in correctional law and policy. We then review early research focused on the statewide effect of Realignment on recidivism, which has produced mixed findings depending on the measure of recidivism applied. We then examine variation in recidivism outcomes across county sites and present findings that indicate there is an important relationship ...
TL;DR: In this article, the relationship between constitutional law and international law in the extraterritorial enforcement of human rights is explored by offering a typology of models: the American, European and Israeli models.
Abstract: Applying human rights beyond state borders is thorny. Which law governs the property rights of a Palestinian whose orchard lies across the Israeli border, or the cross-border shooting of a Mexican citizen by a United States border control agent? This article explores the relationship between constitutional law and international law in the extraterritorial enforcement of human rights by offering a typology of models: the American, European and Israeli models. These models are analysed comparatively, highlighting their chosen legal source of rights: the American model applies constitutional law, the European model uses international law, and Israel combines the two. The article argues that the choice between constitutional and international law is important as it affects the nature and scope of rights, and reflects the relationship between the state and the territory it controls or within which it acts. The dynamic formation process of the Israeli model demonstrates the multiple possible ways to combine these two sources of law and formulate the relationship between them. All three models share a ‘constitutional mindset’: the use of basic legal concepts and reasoning in legally grey zones. However, these transnational processes are not deterministic and could result in original concepts, contradictions and discrepancies, as well as serve different political visions.
TL;DR: Lardy and Hill as mentioned in this paper argued that the right not to vote is compatible with a duty to vote, so arguments for a duty-to-vote do not refute the existence of such a right.
Abstract: Opponents of compulsory voting often allege that it violates a ‘right not to vote’. This paper seeks to clarify and defend such a right against its critics (Lardy in Oxf J Leg Stud 24:303–321, 2004; Hill in Aust J Polit Sci 50:61–72, 2015a; in Crit Rev Int Soc Polit Philos 18:652–660, 2015b). First, I propose that this right must be understood as a Hohfeldian claim against being compelled to vote, rather than as a mere privilege to abstain. So construed, the right not to vote is compatible with a duty to vote, so arguments for a duty to vote do not refute the existence of such a right. The right against compulsion is most easily defended within a liberal framework, hence its critics often appeal instead to a republican conception of freedom. In the latter part of the paper, I argue that even these republican arguments are inconclusive. Even non-dominating interference still conditions freedom, which may require justification. Further, citizens can live up to republican ideals, so long as they are vigilant; they need not actually vote. Thus, republican arguments fail to refute a right not to vote.
TL;DR: The study goal was to determine whether a significant number of high suicide risk individuals would confidentially put their own names onto a list to prevent future gun purchases, which would appeal to many people at high risk for suicide.
Abstract: The study goal was to determine whether a significant number of high suicide risk individuals would confidentially put their own names onto a list to prevent future gun purchases. An anonymous written survey was administered in an inpatient psychiatric unit and two outpatient psychiatric clinics at an academic medical center. Two hundred forty individuals were approached to fill out the survey, of whom 200 (83.3%) did so. Forty-six percent of participants stated that they would put their own name onto the list. This novel suicide prevention proposal, a Do-Not-Sell List, would appeal to many people at high risk for suicide.
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 ...