Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2007"

Individualism and Collectivism in America: The Case of Gun Ownership and Attitudes toward Gun Control:

Abstract: A number of sociologists and cultural psychologists claim that the United States is a predominantly individualistic country. This article uses a unidimensional index of individualism and collectivi...

Pediatricians’ involvement in gun injury prevention

Abstract: Background: Injuries from small arms are of concern internationally. The health perspective is an emerging aspect of international work to reduce these injuries. This aspect has been evident in US firearm injury prevention work for over a decade, exhibited by strong statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to remove firearms from children’s environments. Objectives: To assess trends among US pediatricians related to firearm injury prevention counseling practices and attitudes toward gun legislation. Design: National random sample, mailed surveys of AAP members: (1) 1994 (response rate = 68.9%, n = 982); (2) 2000 (response rate = 62.4%, n = 922). χ 2 Tests were used to assess bivariate relationships and logistic regression to assess multivariate relationships regarding counseling practices. Results: Respondents in both years believed that violence prevention should be a priority for pediatricians (91.4% and 92.0%) and reported always or sometimes recommending handgun removal from the home (46.2% and 55.9%, respectively). In 2000, 74% of the respondents were comfortable discussing firearm safety; fewer thought they had sufficient training (32.7%) or time (27.5%) to discuss firearms. In 1994 and 2000, the likelihood of counseling on handgun removal was positively related to recent experience treating a gun injury, female sex and not owning a gun. In both years, >80% of pediatricians thought that gun control legislation or regulations would reduce injury and death. Conclusions: US pediatricians continue to adopt policies promoting gun injury prevention. The practices and attitudes of pediatricians may be important for public education strategies regarding firearm injury prevention in the US and internationally.

Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America

Abstract: Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. By Kristin A. Goss. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. 304p. $29.95. If popular political movements attract the attention of a wide range of political scientists, this is the case, to no small degree, because they seem to bridge an impossible chasm. They seem to bridge—or at least to begin to build a bridge between—on the one hand, the lofty aspirations of democrats who invoke a language of government “by the people,” and on the other, the reality of modern democracies in which elites govern, while citizens judge their performances. When people vote, they affirm—or they reject—the leaders who make and enforce collective decisions. When people participate in popular movements, by contrast, they act in public to articulate and press claims about collective norms. When ordinary citizens participate in mass political movements, that is to say, they act collectively to exercise political power.

Trends in firearm-related deaths in the Transkei region of South Africa.

Abstract: BACKGROUND:: Firearms tends to be seen today as instrumental in injuries and deaths, including suicide. South Africa's gun law allows firearms to be licensed and legal, so in general they are not illegal weapons, even though many used in violence are illegal. This is a prime area in which multisectorial collaboration is needed in a country like South Africa. OBJECTIVE:: The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence of firearm-related deaths and to understand the underlying causative factors. METHOD:: This is a record review of 10,860 medicolegal autopsies conducted between 1993 and 2004 at Umtata General Hospital. RESULTS:: Between 1993 and 2004, there were10,860 autopsies performed of those who died as a result of trauma and others in Umtata General Hospital. The average gunshot-related deaths during this period are 48.4 per 100,000 of the population per year. The rate has increased from 27 per 100,000 in 1993 to 42 per 100,000 in 2004. It was climbed to its peak to 67.8 per 100,000 in 2001. Firearm-related deaths account for 29% of all traumatic deaths. Males (82%) outnumber females 4.6:1 in fatalities due to firearms. There is an increasing trend in females. About 50% were in the 21- to 40-year age group. Interpersonal violence, poverty, and use of drugs and alcohol are common underlying factors. CONCLUSION:: There is a high incidence of firearm-related deaths in Transkei, which is in support of stricter gun control. Language: en

Gun-Control Legislation and the Impact on Suicide

Abstract: Gun control is the prototypical example of controlling the environment for the means of suicide, an effective public health approach to suicide prevention. Canada's Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 (Bill C-51) provides an excellent opportunity to illustrate the effects of legislative gun-control laws and the impact on suicide. The research in Canada supports the significant effect of C-51 in reducing suicides and firearm suicides, even if one controls for socioeconomic factors, although not equally for all ages. The young, a high-risk group, show the most significant decrease, without significant substitution of other methods (displacement). Studies on gun-control laws from New Zealand, the United States, and Australia support the Canadian findings. It is concluded that, although not equally applicable in all countries, gun control may well have significant applications in reducing suicide worldwide.

Aggression and violence in the United States: Reflections on the Virginia Tech shootings.

Abstract: The shootings at Virginia Tech University in April 2007 have again brought home the tragic consequences of violence. As yet another instance of senseless aggression unfolded, the nation watched as details emerged about the perpetrator and the deaths of 32 students and professors. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, lived a troubled life characterized by social isolation, alienation, and depression. Furthermore, professors at Virginia Tech had recognized erratic behavior in Mr. Cho and had referred him for counseling and mental health treatment on several different occasions. On the other hand, Mr. Cho's victims were, by all accounts, normal students going about their daily routines. Sadly, we could easily substitute the name of any U.S. university for Virginia Tech. Images of what happened on April 16 in Blacksburg have filled the thoughts and minds of university students, faculty, and staff across the nation. Reports of frantic parents trying to reach their loved ones and of cell phones ringing in the pockets of dead students affected the psyche of an entire country. The Virginia Tech shootings were preceded by deadly violence on at least 12 other college campuses dating to the well-known Kent State shootings of 1970. It is disturbing that seven of these 12 incidents have occurred since 1991; four have happened since 2000 (Smith, 2007). The shootings at Virginia Tech remind us that violent behavior often occurs in unexpected places under hard-to-predict circumstances. It is interesting that recent shootings on U.S. campuses have occurred when rates for most types of aggression and violence have achieved their lowest levels in years. TRENDS IN AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE Trends in aggression and violence generally mirror a host of individual, social, and economic patterns. For example, the well-documented increase in youth violence between the late 1980s and mid-1990s was linked to increases in gang involvement and crack cocaine use. Conversely, reductions in youth violence in the past decade have been associated with the implementation of innovative law enforcement strategies, improvements in economic opportunities, and efficacious prevention approaches in communities and schools (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006). Disentangling and interpreting trends in violent conduct, however, is a daunting task for policy officials and practitioners. Offender and victimization data compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice reveal a decrease in violence between the mid-1990s and 2004. For example, the rate of violent crime for the offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault decreased 26% between 1996 and 2004 (Crime in the United States 2004, 2005). Similarly, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, an annual household survey of crime victimization in the United States, indicate that the victimization rate for violent crime fell to an all-time low of 21 incidents per 1,000 residents in 2005 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). Finally, a decline in juvenile violence has also been reported widely in recent years; for example, the arrest rate for violent crimes by youths under the age of 18 decreased by 49% between 1994 and 2004 (Snyder, 2006). However, an increase in violent crime rates among adults in the past few years may signal an end to the downward turn in violent crime in the United States. Notably, overall violent crime increased by a little more than 2% between 2004 and 2005 (Crime in the United States 2005, 2006), and data released in 2007 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate that violent crime increased 1% between 2005 and 2006 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm). Data published later this year will show whether similar increases are occurring among persons under age 18. In sum, trends of violent conduct in the United States reveal both optimism and concern. On the one hand, a decade-long decline in violence has led to a greater sense of security among many citizens and to more opportunities for people at greatest risk of criminal involvement. …

Open Fire: Understanding Global Gun Cultures

Abstract: 1.The Social Life of Guns: An Introduction, Charles Fruehling Springwood SECTION I. Looking Down the Barrel of a Gun: Nation-States, Small Arms, and Local Victims 2. Gunscapes: Toward a Global Geography of the Firearm, Charles Fruehling Springwood 3. "Silent But Deadly: Guns and Ceasefire Agreements in Northern Ireland", Jeffrey Sluka 4. Gun Politics: Reflections on Brazil's Failed Gun Ban Referendum in the Rio de Janeiro Context, Donna Goldstein 5. "Of Guns, Children and the Maelstrom" , Frank Afflitto 6. Warriors and Guns: the Anthropology of Cattle Rustling in Northeastern Africa, Nene Mburu SECTION II. Cocked and Loaded: Race, Sex, and Gender 7. Arming Desire: The Sexual Force of Guns in the U.S., C. Richard King 8. Drawing a Virtual Gun, Katherine Gregory 9. 'Gun Rights are Civil Rights': Racism and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the United States, Christy Allen 10. Aiming for Manhood: The Transformation of Guns into Objects of American Masculinity, Amy Ann Cox 11. 'Man to Man: Power and Male Relationships in the Gunplay Film', Robert Arjet SECTION III. Playing, Dancing, and Thinking with Guns 12. 'I Shot the Sheriff': Gun Talk in Jamaican Popular Music, Carolyn Cooper 13. Playing at Hate: War Games, the Aryan World Congress, and the American Psyche, Robert Rinehart 14. The Celebration of Violence: A Live-Fire Demonstration Carried Out by Japan's Contemporary Military, Eyal Ben-Ari and Sabine Fruhstuck

No Gun Left Behind - The Gun Lobby's Campaign to Push Guns into Colleges and Schools

Abstract: On April 16, 2007, the day of the "Massacre at Virginia Tech", in which 32 innocent college students and faculty lost their lives to a crazed gunman armed with two semi-automatic pistols and a couple hundred rounds of ammunition, the first reaction of the gun lobby was that we need more guns on the college campuses of our Nation. The gun lobby also wants to repeal the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act and arm public school teachers. This report exposes the gun lobby's step-by-step strategy to force guns into every aspect of daily life. Introducing guns into schools and universities is only the latest attempt to knock down barriers to firearms possession in places that previously were gun-free. Section One discusses the severe risks that would be created if gun possession and carrying became widespread on college campuses and gun-free school zones were undermined. Section Two explains how that campaign would destroy fundamental rights of academic freedom and wrest control of college campuses and schools from persons entrusted to secure those institutions. Section Three explains that these risks can best be managed by continuing gunfree policies. The Conclusion stresses that because of the gun lobby's campaign, it is no longer enough for academic institutions to adopt gun-free policies. Academic communities must also become active in potentially every state legislature if they want to keep the right to maintain a gun-free environment.

The Human Right of Self-Defense

Abstract: Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said no - that international law recognizes no human right of self-defense. To the contrary, the Human Rights Council declares that very severe gun control - more restrictive than even the laws of New York City - is a human right. Surveying international law from its earliest days to the present, this Article demonstrates that self-defense is a widely-recognized human right which no government and no international body have the authority to abrogate. The issue is especially important today, as many international advocates of international gun prohibition are using the United Nations to deny and then eliminate the right of self-defense. For example, the General Assembly is creating an Arms Trade Treaty which would define arms sales to citizens in the United States as a human rights violation, because American law guarantees the right to use lethal force, when no lesser force will suffice, against a non-homicidal violent felony attack. The article analyzes in detail the Founders of international law - the great scholars in the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries who created the system of international law. The Article then looks at the major legal systems which have contributed to international law, such as Greek law, Roman law, Spanish law, Jewish law, Islamic law, Canon law, and Anglo-American law. In addition, the article covers the full scope of contemporary international law sources, including treaties, the United Nations, constitutions from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and much more. The Article shows that international law - particularly its restraints on the conduct of warfare - is founded on the personal right of self-defense. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1022097 Language: en

The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment

Abstract: Proponents of the so-called "collective right" model of the Second Amendment often assert that the right to bear arms exists only on the part of state militias, and not as any sort of individual right. Without addressing the merits of that claim, this Article examines the consequences of taking such a view seriously as a matter of constitutional law, and suggests that those consequences might be quite drastic.

Guns, Murder, and Probability: How Can We Decide Which Figures to Trust?

Abstract: As historians, we take pride in our openness to new ideas. That is why, I think, so many of us were enthusiastic about Michael Bellesiles's Arming America.1 Its thesis-that few Americans used, owned, or cared about guns before the mid-nineteenth century-was certainly congenial to scholars who supported gun control, because it suggested America's homicide problem was caused by an increase in gun ownership and the creation of a "gun culture." But Arming America had a more fundamental appeal for historians. It proved that they could make important discoveries, that they could confound received wisdom with bold hypotheses and careful research, and that they could play a crucial role in public life. Unfortunately, Arming America was wrong about early America. We also take pride as historians in our skepticism. We admire critics who put the dominant school of thought on the defensive, as Robert Dykstra does in his witty essays on the "new" Western history.2 He believes that "this on-going postmodernist exercise" has done a disservice to the West by exaggerating its violence and that"[d]espite all the mythologizing, violent fatalities in the Old West tended to be rare rather than common." He blames this "misconception" about Western violence on the mathematical incompetence of recent scholars of Western violence, who commit what he calls "the fallacy of small numbers." These scholars "inflate" the West's violence by calculating homicide rates for small populations, a practice that can turn the lone homicide that occurred in Dodge City in 1880 (population 1,275) into an annual murder rate of 78.4 per 100,000 persons per year: 13 times the homicide rate in the United States today. The "new" Western scholars divide the number of homicides in a given year by the local population and multiply by 100,000, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation does:

The District of Columbia Gun Ban: Where the Seductive Promise of Gun Control Meets Reality

Abstract: The District of Columbia’s handgun prohibition is the most-studied gun control measure in this country. After over thirty years there is still no reliable evidence to support the ban’s efficacy. There is no evidence that the gun ban has lowered violent crime, reduced the illegal gun supply, prevented any firearm accidents or suicides, or had any advantageous effect whatsoever. There is, however, good reason to believe that the gun ban has harmed the District by making law-abiding citizens helpless in one of the most crime-ridden cities in America. Supporters of the District’s gun ban say that it has helped counteract the plague of violence that has long afflicted the city; thirty years of research has proven such sentiments to be based on wishful thinking and political myths. Robert Endorf is a graduate of NYU Law School and is a lawyer in Kentucky.

Scrutinizing the Second Amendment

Abstract: One overlooked issue in the voluminous literature on the Second Amendment is what standard of review should apply to gun control if the Amendment is read to protect an individual right to bear arms. This lack of attention may be due to the assumption that strict scrutiny would necessarily apply because the right would be "fundamental" or because the right is located in the Bill of Rights. In this Article, Professor Winkler challenges that assumption and considers the arguments for a contrary conclusion: that the Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms is appropriately governed by a deferential, reasonableness review under which nearly all gun control laws would survive judicial review. Professor Winkler's discussion is informed by the example of state constitutional law, where the individual right to bear arms is already well established. Forty-two states have constitutional provisions guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms and, tellingly, every state to consider the question applies a deferential reasonable regulation standard in arms rights cases. No state applies strict scrutiny or any other type of heightened review to gun laws. Since World War II, the state courts have authored hundreds of opinions using the reasonable regulation test to determine the constitutionality of all sorts of gun control laws. All but a fraction of these decisions uphold gun control laws as reasonable measures to protect public safety. If the federal courts follow this universal practice of the state courts and apply the reasonable regulation standard, nearly all gun control laws will survive judicial review. Moreover, as Professor Winkler argues, even if the federal courts decide to apply strict scrutiny, most weapons laws might still be upheld due to the overwhelming governmental interest in public safety. If so, then any eventual triumph of the individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment is likely to be more symbolic than substantive.

State Constitutional Rights of Self-Defense and Defense of Property

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION "[D]efending life and liberty" and "protecting property," twenty-one state constitutions expressly tell us, are constitutional rights, generally "inalienable" though in some constitutions merely "inherent" or "natural" and God-given. Yet they are also almost entirely undiscussed constitutional rights. The leading treatise on state constitutional law doesn't mention them. An excellent forthcoming article on a federal constitutional right to self-defense doesn't discuss the state rights.21 could find no law review articles that discussed the rights in depth. This silence may stem precisely from the broad acceptance of self-defense (and defense of property, at least with force that is not ledial to humans) as a criminal law doctrine. If states never deny people the right of self-defense, then there's little occasion to explore constitutional limits on such denials. Nonetheless, the constitutional status of self-defense may matter; it may, for instance, influence courts' judgments about: * the boundaries of self-defense or defense-of-property doctrine, such as proposed self-defense exceptions to felon-in-possession statutes,3 or when someone forfeits his right to self-defense against fellow criminals by engaging in a drug transaction;4 * tort liability based on acts of self-defense or defense of property, such as when a store's employee defends himself against a criminal and in the process inadvertently jeopardizes a third party; * limits on private employers' ability to fire employees for violent acts in the workplace when the acts were defensive;6 * attempts to defend life against nonhuman threats, such as attempts to defend life against terminal disease using drugs that haven't yet been fully tested, or to defend life against organ failure by paying for organs to be transplanted;7 or * the permissibility of bans on nonlethal weapons such as tasers (even setting aside the gun control debate).8 And, more broadly, thinking about a right that many constitution-drafters found important enough to expressly secure may provide a broader perspective on American constitutionalism. This article isn't meant to resolve these issues, or even provide a theoretical framework for resolving them. It simply aims to help others discuss the questions by collecting the chief sources-mainly constitutional provisions and cases interpreting them-that are relevant to the subject. Having found the sources myself in writing an article about an unusual sort of self-defense,9 I thought it would be helpful to spare others the same effort. Part II collects the texts of the state constitutional provisions. Part III cites and synthesizes the lower court cases on the subject, and establishes that there is a substantial tradition of treating the right as judicially enforceable and not just hortatory. Part IV points to those state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provisions that implicitly support a right to self-defense, and to cases so interpreting those provisions. Part V reaches beyond state constitutions to summarize the cases discussing whether the federal Constitution's Due Process Clause or Ninth Amendment protects a right to self-defense. II. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO DEFEND LIFE" PROVISIONS Arkansas: "All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."10 California: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. …

The Politics of Gun Control and India's Internal Security

Abstract: In the past two decades, security has come to be one of the most contested and debated concepts within the domain of international relations. Its state-centred contours interpreted narrowly as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of nuclear holocaust, have today made way for a new security understanding that includes economic, environmental, cultural sectors and new security referents—societies, nonstate actors, individuals. This conceptual widening has been complemented at a practical level by a growing focus on conflicts and security challenges that stem from within states and which trace their roots to non-traditional sources such as drugs, terrorism, small arms, cyber war and trafficking in human beings.

The 1996 Port Arthur Massacre: Implications for Current and Future Cooperative Federalism

Abstract: From time to time, a single event or issue has forced Australian politicians at both levels of government to seek a more cooperative approach to federalism. Such was the case in 1996 when, following the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, a combination of a culture of gun ownership and an ideology of 'States' Rights' came into conflict with Prime Minister John Howard's demand for uniform national gun legislation. Due to the impact of this massacre on public opinion, the states had no option but to adopt a more cooperative approach to federalism, and to comply with the Prime Minister's demands. This article explains how the massacre led to uniform national gun laws, and determines whether or not that process was an example of cooperative federalism. It also compares that issue with aspects of the current Murray-Darling basin debate, and then outlines some implications of Port Arthur for the future of Cooperative Federalism. The Port Arthur Massacre At 1.30pm on Sunday 28 April 1996, the peace surrounding the Tasmanian historic precinct of Port Arthur was shattered. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old Hobart resident, arrived with two semi-automatic assault rifles and opened fire on visitors having lunch in the Broad Arrow Cafe. He fired 250 rounds, killing 35 and injuring a further 21 in or about Port Arthur, and was apprehended by police the following day. Bryant, although having had learning difficulties at school, had no previous criminal record or history of diagnosed mental illness (Bingham 1996,22,119,135; Chapman 1998,1). Bryant had never possessed a gun licence, and was not asked for one when he purchased his lethal weapons, although the law in Tasmania required it (Bingham 1996,164). The Background State gun legislations, prior to 1996, were not only weak but extremely inconsistent. This was brought about by the piecemeal approach of separate states making amendments to their laws following shootings in their own state. The inconsistencies from one state to the others were made worse by the many common shortcomings; for example, there were only nominal requirements for the safe storage of firearms in all states (Fine 1988,8,9&21). There were no real restrictions in any state on the ownership of military-style semiautomatic weapons nor, prior to 1985, any requirement for a genuine reason to possess a firearm (Harding 1999, 25; Fine 1985, 138). Gun control groups were not just demanding enhanced legislation - they maintained an unequivocal view that the total number of weapons in the community had to be substantially reduced (Herlihy 1994,68). But change was rendered difficult due to the power of the gun lobby, which was described as a 'smug and wholly disproportionate political power in Australia' (Chapman 1998, 3). In addition, there was the farming community's point of view to be considered - where firearms were regarded as tools of trade, just like an axe or a long-handled shovel. It had been claimed that 'the history of uniform national [gun] laws in our Federation [was] largely characterised by compromise, delay and occasionally complete failure' (Egger & Peters 1993, 202). This was an issue that was about to become the most difficult challenge yet for cooperative federalism in Australia. The Reaction There was an angry public reaction to the Port Arthur massacre right across Australia, and this had a huge impact on the public's position on guns. This mood was to be clearly reflected in an AGB McNair opinion poll published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 May 1996, which indicated that 90 per cent of voters were in favour of the proposed ban on automatic and semiautomatic guns, with 78 per cent strongly in support (Cockburn 1996, 8). The poll also changed the public perception of what the gun lobby stood for. The Federal Response On the day after the massacre Prime Minister John Howard reacted by announcing that he would introduce the most stringent raft of gun control measures ever attempted in the country. …

A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origin of Gun Control in America

Abstract: A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA: THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE ORIGIN OF GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA By Saul Cornell.[dagger] New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pp.277. $30.00 "Every thing of a controvertible nature," James Madison noted regarding his proposed Bill of Rights, "was studiously avoided."1 We may wonder what he would think of the 217 years of controversy that followed. For most provisions of the Bill of Rights, the controversies have focused upon their boundaries and limitations. What is an "unreasonable search," a "compelled" self-incrimination, an "establishment" of religion? In the case of the Second Amendment2 the dispute is far more fundamental, going to the very question of whether it has any meaningful existence. Here, the conflict has been one between variants of two viewpoints: (1) the "individual rights" view,3 which has two variants: (a) The "standard model," which sees the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a personal right on par with other Bill of Rights protections; (b) What I have termed the "hybrid" view, which sees it as guaranteeing an individual right but limited to private bearing of arms suited for military or militia use;4 and (2) the "collective rights" view which likewise has two variants: (a) The traditional "collective rights" approach, which sees the amendment as protecting only a state interest in an organized militia, i.e., National Guard units;5 and (b) What the Fifth Circuit has termed the "sophisticated" collective rights approach, which sees it as protecting individual activity but only if directly linked to organized militia missions.6 As the first view treats the Second Amendment as a meaningful restriction on legislative action, while the second treats it as fundamentally meaningless,7 the conflict is absolute. The history of the understanding of the American right to arms has followed an unusual course in which the advantage swayed back and forth between the two schools of thought. At its outset, the existence of an individual right was taken for granted by courts,8 commentators,9 and the general public10 throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The collective rights view was first enunciated, by a state court, in 1905.11 1 In 1939, the United States Supreme Court declined to accept that approach in United States v. Miller;12 soon thereafter, however, two Circuits read Miller either as endorsing the collective rights approach13 or as setting only a threshold test that permitted them to go farther and accept such an approach.14 Most of the remaining circuits followed,15 and this reading of Miller became a matter of "received wisdom" to the point in which some decisions suggest the authors had not bothered to read Miller before interpreting it.16 Even as late as the early 1960s, Supreme Court justices and an article selected by the American Bar Foundation as the winner of its constitutional law essay competition were willing to acknowledge the essentially individual nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment, but that changed by the end of the 1960s. . . . It is fair to say that by the 1970s the collective or states' rights theory had won the day with most jurists and legal and lay commentators who opined on the issue. . . . Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, expressed opinion on the part of the elite bar, the bench, and the legal academy was firmly on the side of those who denied the existence of an individual right to arms.17 The tide was, however, changing once again. When first I published on the subject in 1 974, 18 there were but a few scholarly treatments in print and none of any particular depth.19 Over the next decade, scholarship in the field expanded, largely as a result of the efforts of Stephen Halbrook, the late David Caplan, and Joyce Malcolm.20 In 1983, Don Kates published a lengthy breakthrough article in the Michigan Law Review.21 Thereafter, scholarly treatment of the individual rights approach grew exponentially. …

D.C.'s Handgun Ban and the Constitutional Right to Arms: One Hard Question?

Abstract: The District of Columbia forbids almost all civilians to possess handguns in their own homes. Rifles and shotguns are permitted, but they must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or secured with a trigger lock, making them useless for self defense. The D.C. Circuit recently held that this statute violates the Second Amendment.One way to attack the D.C. Circuit decision is to argue that the Second Amendment protects the private possession of weapons only to the extent necessary to preserve in civilian hands a stock of weapons suitable for use while serving in the militia. Rifles and shotguns would be the most obviously useful weapons for militiamen to bring with them from home, and the D.C. statute permits civilians to possess rifles and shotguns, along with the ammunition these weapons require. Why does this not satisfy the Second Amendment?This superficially plausible defense of the District's statute was not adequately refuted in Judge Silberman's opinion for the D.C. Circuit. This article demonstrates, largely but not exclusively on the basis of a careful linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment, that such a defense of the District's statute is untenable.

Gun control US style: one small step.

Abstract: Strict regulation is essential at gun shows to curb criminal activity In light of the shooting deaths of 32 people in April at a US university, Virginia Tech, I felt compelled to include the paper by Wintemute1 in this issue (see page 150). To my way of thinking, this study represents a small but critical step towards truly effective gun control in a country where the culture of guns verges on the incomprehensible. Although there is …

Gunning for America

Abstract: Within hours of the Virginia Tech shooting the British media were running pieces about Gun Control legislation (or the lack of it) in the States. Why?

Civil liberties under Labour: the wasted years

Abstract: Oh, irony of ironies. David Davis thinks there is electoral advantage in moving to the liberal side of Labour. He has launched a Tory campaign against identity cards and extension of pre-charge detention. So, the Labour government's decade-long attempt to blindside its main opponents ends with a government more royalist than the king. Two cases summarise the Labour government's inherent anti-libertarianism. The government went to extraordinary, if ultimately incompetent, lengths to get legislation to remove Brian Haw from his demonstration against the Iraq War outside parliament and to prosecute Maya Evans for reading the names of the dead a couple of hundred yards further up Whitehall. All in the name of protection against terrorism. The interesting issue is how Labour got itself into the position of penalising demonstrators against wars when its own senior membership had it, and it alone, was "the party of law and order in Britain today". The Tories were lambasted for "forgetting the order part". Labour wanted action: the conviction of more offenders, a crackdown on petty crimes, more gun control and fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders. The manifesto gave prominence to the Blairite mantra of 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'. A major Labour priority was to wrest criminal justice from the Tories and make it a Labour issue. Accordingly, the Home Office became a prime source of Mr Blair's concern. And how active he has been. Remember the centrepiece legislation of his period in office: the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was so deliriously long 339 sections, 38 schedules. No chance of parliament stopping that or even scrutinising much of it. How it showed a government and a Home Office at the height of their powers six years into office and still three years from any deflating declaration of 'not fit for

The Supreme Court, the Gun Industry, and the Misguided Revival of Strict Territorial Limits on the Reach of State Law

Abstract: While tort lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers have captured much attention in recent years, there is an intriguing constitutional issue arising in the cases that has largely escaped notice. The gun companies build a defense from statements in a line of recent Supreme Court opinions indicating that the dormant Commerce Clause forbids application of a state statute to commerce occurring wholly outside the state's borders. The gun companies contend that it would be unconstitutional for them to be held liable under state tort law for the manufacture or sale of a gun that occurred outside the state. Several courts have accepted that argument, which would dramatically reduce the reach of state authority, while other courts have expressed bewilderment about the lack of clear precedent affirming or rejecting the argument. This article contends that the Supreme Court should disavow its recent statements about strict territorial limits on the reach of state law. Those statements hark back to a conception of state authority that prevailed throughout the law a century ago but appeared to be dead until the Supreme Court's recent comments revived it. The statements have no support in modern precedent, they arose in part from a Supreme Court opinion's error in citation of authority, and they cannot be correct without rendering unconstitutional a vast number of the products liability and other tort claims that courts hear every day. Lower court decisions trying to follow the Supreme Court's lead on this point have produced only confusion and inconsistency. Strict territorial limits on the reach of state law died long ago for good reasons. The Supreme Court should let them rest in peace. While it ultimately fails, the gun companies' argument highlights the need for courts to clear up the substantial confusion surrounding this important but overlooked constitutional issue.

Federal Gun Industry Immunity Legislation

Abstract: This afterword to the paperback edition of Suing the Gun Industry discusses questions of statutory interpretation and constitutional challenges to the federal gun industry immunity bill - the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It argues that the immunity law is likely to produce outcomes unintended by its drafters if it survives constitutional challenges.