Securing Gun Rights by Statute: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Michigan Law Review Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.36644/mlr.120.4.securing
J. Charles
{"title":"Securing Gun Rights by Statute: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution","authors":"J. Charles","doi":"10.36644/mlr.120.4.securing","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In popular and professional discourse, debate about the right to keep and bear arms most often revolves around the Second Amendment. But that narrow reference ignores a vast and expansive nonconstitutional legal regime privileging guns and their owners. This collection of nonconstitutional gun rights confers broad powers and immunities on gun owners that go far beyond those required by the Constitution, like rights to bring guns on private property against an owner’s wishes and to carry a concealed firearm in public with no training or background check. This Article catalogues this set of expansive laws and critically assesses them. Unlike the formal constitutional guarantee, this broad collection is not solely libertarian, concerned only with guaranteeing noninterference with a negative right. Instead, it is also aggressively interventionist, countermanding contrary policy judgments by employers, universities, property owners, and local government officials, conferring robust rights and privileges, and shifting the distribution of violence in society. This Article underscores the rhetorical and legal connection between this gun-rights expansionism and the formal Second Amendment guarantee. These laws do not derive from a judicial interpretation of the scope of the Constitution, but they are expressed and advocated for in constitutional terms. The Article also highlights how broad gun rights can create unique harm to the body politic and to marginalized groups by fostering fear and mistrust and empowering sometimes-problematic private actors to proactively police their own communities. Finally, the Article shows how gun-rights expansionism influences constitutional doctrine in the context of the Second Amendment, as well as of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.","PeriodicalId":47790,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.120.4.securing","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In popular and professional discourse, debate about the right to keep and bear arms most often revolves around the Second Amendment. But that narrow reference ignores a vast and expansive nonconstitutional legal regime privileging guns and their owners. This collection of nonconstitutional gun rights confers broad powers and immunities on gun owners that go far beyond those required by the Constitution, like rights to bring guns on private property against an owner’s wishes and to carry a concealed firearm in public with no training or background check. This Article catalogues this set of expansive laws and critically assesses them. Unlike the formal constitutional guarantee, this broad collection is not solely libertarian, concerned only with guaranteeing noninterference with a negative right. Instead, it is also aggressively interventionist, countermanding contrary policy judgments by employers, universities, property owners, and local government officials, conferring robust rights and privileges, and shifting the distribution of violence in society. This Article underscores the rhetorical and legal connection between this gun-rights expansionism and the formal Second Amendment guarantee. These laws do not derive from a judicial interpretation of the scope of the Constitution, but they are expressed and advocated for in constitutional terms. The Article also highlights how broad gun rights can create unique harm to the body politic and to marginalized groups by fostering fear and mistrust and empowering sometimes-problematic private actors to proactively police their own communities. Finally, the Article shows how gun-rights expansionism influences constitutional doctrine in the context of the Second Amendment, as well as of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以法规保障持枪权:宪法之外持有和携带武器的权利
在大众和专业话语中,关于持有和携带武器的权利的辩论通常围绕着第二修正案展开。但这种狭隘的说法忽略了一个庞大而广泛的违宪法律制度,它赋予枪支及其所有者特权。这一系列违反宪法的枪支权利赋予了枪支拥有者广泛的权力和豁免权,远远超出了宪法所要求的范围,比如违背所有者意愿将枪支带入私人财产的权利,以及在没有经过培训或背景调查的情况下在公共场合携带枪支的权利。本文对这一套广泛的法律进行了分类,并对它们进行了批判性的评估。与正式的宪法保障不同,这种广泛的收集并不仅仅是自由主义的,只关心保证不干涉消极权利。相反,它也是积极的干预主义者,推翻雇主、大学、财产所有者和地方政府官员的相反政策判断,赋予强大的权利和特权,并改变社会中暴力的分布。这篇文章强调了这种枪支权利扩张主义与正式的第二修正案保障之间的修辞和法律联系。这些法律并非源于对《宪法》范围的司法解释,但它们是以宪法的方式表达和提倡的。该条还强调了广泛的枪支权利如何会对国家和边缘化群体造成独特的伤害,因为它会助长恐惧和不信任,并使有时存在问题的私人行为者能够主动监督自己的社区。最后,文章展示了枪支权利扩张主义如何在第二修正案以及第一、第四和第十四修正案的背景下影响宪法原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Michigan Law Review is a journal of legal scholarship. Eight issues are published annually. Seven of each volume"s eight issues ordinarily are composed of two major parts: Articles by legal scholars and practitioners, and Notes written by the student editors. One issue in each volume is devoted to book reviews. Occasionally, special issues are devoted to symposia or colloquia. First Impressions, the online companion to the Michigan Law Review, publishes op-ed length articles by academics, judges, and practitioners on current legal issues. This extension of the printed journal facilitates quick dissemination of the legal community’s initial impressions of important judicial decisions, legislative developments, and timely legal policy issues.
期刊最新文献
Mooting Unilateral Mootness Race-ing Antitrust Recognizing the Right to Family Unity in Immigration Law Disabling Lawyering: Buck v. Bell and the Road to a More Inclusive Legal Practice Error Aversions and Due Process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1