A Second Amendment Right to Be Negligent?

Florida Law Review Forum, V. 68, No. 1, pp. 79-88, 2016

George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 17-03

11 Pages Posted: 18 Jan 2017

See all articles by Stephen G. Gilles

Stephen G. Gilles

Quinnipiac University School of Law

Nelson Lund

George Mason University School of Law

Date Written: January 17, 2017

Abstract

Professor Andrew Jay McClurg maintains that the Second Amendment has been used to create a right to store firearms negligently. It is conceivable that some such thing could happen, just as the Supreme Court has used the First Amendment to require plaintiffs who are public figures to prove more than negligence in defamation actions. But Professor McClurg presents no evidence to support his claim. To accept his claim that the Second Amendment has caused courts to distort the application of standard tort principles, we would have to believe that they secretly relied on the Second Amendment and that they undertook this insidious project before they believed there was a legal basis for what they were doing. This is completely implausible. Professor McClurg, however, makes two additional claims that require a more extended response.

First, he maintains that courts have misapplied well-established tort principles in refusing to hold the victims of gun thefts liable for injuries subsequently inflicted with the stolen weapons. This is wrong. Courts are simply applying traditional tort doctrines — including proximate cause and limits on duties to protect strangers from wrongdoing by others — when they refuse to impose liability on a gun owner whose unsecured gun is stolen and subsequently used to commit a crime.

Second, Professor McClurg contends that legislatures have irresponsibly failed to impose objectively reasonable safe-storage duties on gun owners. Unfortunately, he has conflated his personal policy preferences with what is objectively reasonable. He advocates a rule requiring gun owners to store their guns in a sturdy, non-portable gun safe whenever they are not within the owner’s immediate control. This rule simply assumes away the costs of safe-storage practices, which include the expense of gun safes and the risk of being unable to quickly access the gun in an emergency. Furthermore, the imposition of such a duty — whether by courts or legislatures — would raise serious Second Amendment questions.

Keywords: Constitutional Law, Firearms, Gun Storage, Negligence, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Safe-Storage, Second Amendment, Tort Law

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Suggested Citation

Gilles, Stephen G. and Lund, Nelson Robert, A Second Amendment Right to Be Negligent? (January 17, 2017). Florida Law Review Forum, V. 68, No. 1, pp. 79-88, 2016; George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 17-03. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2901044 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2901044

Stephen G. Gilles

Quinnipiac University School of Law ( email )

275 Mt. Carmel Ave.
Hamden, CT 06518
United States
203-582-3284 (Phone)
203-582-3244 (Fax)

Nelson Robert Lund (Contact Author)

George Mason University School of Law ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
703-993-8045 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
85
Abstract Views
769
rank
300,644
PlumX Metrics