|
||||
|
||||
The Right Not to Keep or Bear ArmsJoseph BlocherDuke University - School of Law January 1, 2012 Stanford Law Review, Vol. 64, pg.1, 2012 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 them, 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 “antigun control” laws that make it difficult or illegal for private individuals to avoid having guns in their actual or constructive possession.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 54 Keywords: Second Amendment, First Amendment, Heller v. District of Columbia Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: October 21, 2011 ; Last revised: April 5, 2012Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo2 in 3.563 seconds