Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1426628
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (244)



 


 



Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, Defend Life, and Practice Religion


Eugene Volokh


University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

June 27, 2009

Stanford Law Review, Vol. 62, 2010
UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 09-20

Abstract:     
Much has been written about the law of lethal self-defense, but comparatively little has been written about nonlethal self-defense. And very little has been written on what is likely the most significant restrictions on nonlethal self-defense - restrictions on possessing and carrying stun guns and irritant sprays, which are indeed almost always nonlethal. Seven states and several cities, for instance, totally ban private possession of stun guns, even in the home. And that’s so even though in all those states gun possession in the home is perfectly legal.

This article discusses the most common such nonlethal weapon restrictions: (1) general bans on possession or carrying, (2) bans on possession by minors (including older minors), (3) bans on possession by felons (including nonviolent felons), (4) bans on possession or carrying in public universities, public housing, and public transportation systems, and (5) bans on carrying in public parks and in places that sell alcohol. All of these, it argues, are generally bad policy, though the case against them is stronger as to some restrictions than others.

It also argues that many such restrictions should be seen as unconstitutional under the right to bear arms, whether federal or state (at least 40 state constitutions secure an individual right to bear arms). It argues that they should be seen as unconstitutional under the right to defend life, which is expressly secured by 21 state constitutions and that might be implicitly secured by the federal constitution. And it argues that when a law allows possession of deadly weapons and not nondeadly weapons, then people who have religious beliefs that forbid deadly force (even in self-defense) but allow nondeadly force should get religious exemptions from such rules, in the roughly half the states that have presumptive religious exemption regimes.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 66

Keywords: Criminal Law, Self-Defense, Constitutional Law, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Religious Freedom

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 6, 2009 ; Last revised: July 17, 2009

Suggested Citation

Volokh, Eugene, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, Defend Life, and Practice Religion (June 27, 2009). Stanford Law Review, Vol. 62, 2010; UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 09-20. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1426628

Contact Information

Eugene Volokh (Contact Author)
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )
385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
310-206-3926 (Phone)
310-206-6489 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,443
Downloads: 177
Download Rank: 98,856
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  244

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.234 seconds