Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category
Federalism and the SAGs’ Brief in McDonald
posted by Joseph Blocher
A few weeks ago, before I got caught up with finishing the semester and creating an exam, I wrote up a post exploring the role of State Attorneys General (SAGs) as agents of popular constitutionalism. In it, I asked whether that role is complicated by whatever obligations SAGs have to represent the interests of the states qua states, as opposed to the interests of “the people.” I used the SAGs’ McDonald v. City of Chicago amicus brief as an example, since it argued for incorporation of the Second Amendment and therefore seemingly against the interests of the states, while advocating a right that three-quarters of the American people support. Since I’m presently trying to avoid grading the aforementioned exam, now seems like a perfect time to revisit the first of those premises — namely, that the argument for incorporation in McDonald cannot be justified on the basis of state interests. The SAGs themselves argued that it could, though I have a hard time seeing how.
December 20, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Second Amendment, Uncategorized
Print This Post
4 Comments
Constructive “Keeping” and the Second Amendment
posted by Joseph Blocher
Eugene Volokh recently linked to an interesting case involving the Second Amendment rights of people who share a home with someone barred from possessing guns. The case’s result seems to turn on the fact that the prosecution simply failed to show that the defendant intentionally helped her boyfriend (a felon) possess her gun. But it also raises interesting questions about what counts as “keeping” and “bearing” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, particularly as those concepts relate to criminal liability for constructive possession.
Inasmuch as debates about the Second Amendment concern its text, they tend to focus on terms like “well regulated Militia,” “the people,” “the right,” and “Arms,” with the definitions of “keep” and “bear” essentially following along with one’s preferred reading of the Amendment’s purpose. If the Amendment is about protecting militias from disarmament, then “keep and bear Arms” is a unitary phrase with a military meaning. If it’s about an “individual” right to self-defense (or something else), then “keep” and “bear” mean simply “have” or “carry,” as the Court held in Heller.
Since Heller, much attention has been given to what types of “the people” have Second Amendment rights, and what types of “Arms” they can bear. But the meanings of “keep” and “bear”–even now that they’ve been redefined as “have” or “carry”–also raise complicated questions, which don’t seem to have attracted the same amount of attention. What amount of control must I exert over a gun in order to assert that I am “keeping” it for Second Amendment purposes? Presumably it doesn’t have to be on my person or even in my immediate control, or else keeping and bearing would mean the same thing, and I wouldn’t have a Second Amendment right to store my guns in an attic or a shed.
Is constitutional “keeping” (i.e, “having”) simply analogous to “possession” in criminal statutes? The concepts are certainly closely related, since a felon’s loss of the right to keep includes a loss of the right to possess. That suggests possession is at the very least a subset of keeping. And if that is so, is there some version of “constructive keeping” akin to constructive possession? Knowledge and intent to control a gun are usually treated as essential elements of constructive possession under state and federal criminal law. That makes sense, given the mental state requirements we generally have in criminal statutes. But does that necessarily mean that they are also essential elements of “keeping” for Second Amendment purposes?
December 8, 2010 at 9:38 am
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Second Amendment, Uncategorized
Print This Post
One Comment
State Attorneys General and Popular Constitutionalism
posted by Joseph Blocher
David Pozen recently published his second article on judicial elections in the pages of the Columbia Law Review. In the first, “The Irony of Judicial Elections,” 108 Colum. L. Rev. 265 (2008), he explored the “new era” of judicial elections and discussed the tradeoff between those elections and the traditional role of the judiciary. In the new piece, “Judicial Elections as Popular Constitutionalism,” 110 Colum. L. Rev. 2047 (2010), he investigates the linkages between judicial elections and popular constitutionalism. In reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder if there’s another set of actors at the state level who are also highly relevant to the enterprise of popular constitutionalism: the state attorneys general.
December 6, 2010 at 8:43 am
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Second Amendment, Uncategorized
Print This Post
3 Comments
Another possible reason for the LAT story on NRA v. Chicago
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
Over at the conspiracy, Eugene Volokh points out an odd fact — while the L.A. Times gives rather extensive coverage to the recent NRA v. Chicago, it gave no coverage at the time to Nordyke v. King, which was a California case. Eugene offers a few possible rationales for this difference:
To be sure, there are possible explanations: Today’s story was by the Times’ Supreme Court reporter, and this case is more likely than the Ninth Circuit case to go to the Supreme Court, for reasons I described here. The underlying controversy in the Seventh Circuit (a handgun ban) is more likely to interest people than the underlying controversy in the Ninth Circuit (a ban on gun possession on county property). And it’s made higher profile by the controversy about Judge Sotomayor’s participation in the Second Circuit’s no-incorporation decision.
At the same time, the broad legal issue — whether state and local governments are bound by the federal right to bear arms — is the same. The Ninth Circuit decision was the one that created the circuit split, and it did tee things up for the Court to consider the Second Circuit’s incorporation case (again, discussed here) — perhaps not perfectly, but still in a way that strikes me as newsworthy. The Ninth Circuit decision is the one that suggests some gun laws may be unconstitutional, which seems to me a pretty newsworthy matter. And the Ninth Circuit case was more local than the Seventh Circuit case.
(In comments, VC readers seem to mostly be of the opinion that the story shows a concerted editorial campaign to promote gun control through skewed news reporting.)
I’d suggest another possible reason — there’s a man-bites-dog aspect of the story which Eugene doesn’t mention; and no, it’s not the cheesy “wow, Republican judges can rule against gun rights” factor. Rather, it’s the fact that incorporation was widely expected to have an easier road than this. Read the rest of this post »
June 4, 2009 at 8:11 am
Tags: eugene volokh, media, news, Second Amendment
Posted in: Current Events, Second Amendment
Print This Post
2 Comments
Practical Advice: Don’t Let Your Client Pay You in Guns
posted by Dave Hoffman
Wow. A pharmacist accused of murder decided to pay his lawyer with his firearm collection. When the Judge presiding over his case inquired as to how many guns, exactly, that collection entailed, a constitutional fight ensued. Quick: which amendment gets play? (Hint: it’s not the 2nd!)
“I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord,” Jerome Jay Ersland said.
Oklahoma County District Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure last week allowed Ersland, 57, of Chickasha to be released on $100,000 bail but she banned him from any access to weapons. The hearing today was to see if he had complied with her order.
Ersland told the judge he no longer owns the weapons. Defense attorney Irven Box said he took the weapons and other personal property from Ersland as payment of part of the attorney fees in the case.
Box told the judge he has accepted other unusual payments in the past, including comic books.
The case arises out of Ersland’s shooting – in purported self-defense – of an individual robbing his store. You can see the video here. And as for the constitutional right to withhold information about Ersland’s gun collection? That would be the right against self-incrimination:
District Attorney David Prater also said prosecutors could use the answer to that question against Ersland at trial.
The judge at one point said she would put Ersland back in jail if he didn’t answer her question but eventually she decided not to revoke his bail. She said she had learned a lesson and will not in the future let a defense attorney collect a defendant’s weapons.
This advice is generalizable. Take cash over credit, and credit over barter. And never, ever, take the instruments of the crime.
June 1, 2009 at 11:47 am
Posted in: Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Current Events, Second Amendment, Weird
Print This Post
5 Comments
A Talk About Heller at ‘Bama
posted by Mike O'Shea
This Thursday I’ll be in recently rain-swept Tuscaloosa, giving a talk at the University of Alabama School of Law on “The Future of the Right to Arms After D.C. v. Heller.” at the kind invitation of ‘Bama’s chapter of the Federalist Society. I hope to discuss Heller‘s revision of U.S. v. Miller, the role of nineteenth-century state court decisions in Heller, and future Second Amendment battlegrounds such as incorporation, concealed carry, and the possible renewal of the expired federal “assault weapons” ban. Time permitting, I’ll also discuss what Heller illustrates about the distinctive character of American conservatism.
The talk will be held at 12:00 p.m. Thursday, August 28, in the Moot Courtroom in the UA Law School building. It would be a treat to encounter some CoOp readers there.
Travel bleg:
I’ve never been to Alabama. Any suggestions for things to do/see during a brief visit to Tuscaloosa or Birmingham (where I’m staying)? I do plan to visit the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.
August 26, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Posted in: Current Events, Second Amendment, Supreme Court
Print This Post
8 Comments
