Second Amendment Traditionalism and Desuetude

Denna artikel bygger på en förstudie om industriakritektur. I artikeln granskas industrihusprojekt i Norden som tilldelats arkitekturpriser. Syftet med artikel är dels att diskutera industriarkitektur och kvalitets och dels att reflektera över designteoretiska aspekter på arkitekturbegrepppet. Artikeln avslutas med en diskussionen om arkitektoniska kvalitet och utgångspunkt från desingområden i prisbelönta industrihusprojektQC 20150108</p

From Theory to Doctrine: An Empirical Analysis of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms After Heller

As a matter of constitutional doctrine, the right to keep and bear arms is coming of age. But although the doctrine has begun to mature in the decade since District of Columbia v. Heller , scholars, advocates, and judges disagree about (and sometimes simply do not know) how to characterize it. This Article is the first comprehensive empirical analysis of post- Heller Second Amendment doctrine. Beginning with a set of more than one thousand Second Amendment challenges, we have coded every available Second Amendment opinion—state and federal, trial and appellate—from Heller up until February 1, 2016. The dataset is deep as well as broad, including dozens of variables regarding the content of each challenge, not just whether it prevailed. Our findings help provide an objective basis for characterizing Second Amendment doctrine and framing new scholarly inquiries. This is a particularly important task now, as the Amendment becomes a part of “normal” constitutional law and increasingly susceptible to the standard tools of legal analysis

Preface: The Second Generation of Second Amendment Law & Policy

Over 70% of China’s domestic oil production is obtained from nine giant oilfields. Understanding the behaviour of these fields is essential to both domestic oil production and future Chinese oil imports. This study utilizes decline curves and depletion rate analysis to create some future production outlooks for the Chinese giants. Based on our study, we can only conclude that China’s future domestic oil production faces a significant challenge caused by maturing and declining giant fields. Evidence also indicates that the extensive use of water flooding and enhanced oil recovery methods may be masking increasing scarcity and may result in even steeper future decline rates than the ones currently being seen. Our results suggest that a considerable drop in oil production from the Chinese giants can be expected over the next decades

Retail Rebellion and the Second Amendment

When, if ever, is there a Second Amendment right to kill a cop? This piece seeks to answer that question. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment codifies a natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That right to self-defense extends to both private and public threats, including self-defense against agents of a tyrannical government. Moreover, the right is individual. Individuals -- not just communities -- have the right to protect themselves from public violence. Individuals -- not just militias -- have the right to defend themselves against tyranny. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court went further, explaining that the right extends to state actors in large part due to the necessity that freedmen be able to defend themselves from tyrannical local law enforcement. But how is this right administered? If the Second Amendment protects an individual right to defend against tyranny, what does such a right look like? What does the Second Amendment say about retail forms of rebellion: threatening police officers, resisting an illegal arrest, cop killing? And how does it square with originalism, which rejects case-by-case balancing of government interests, and instead looks to history -- a history that for centuries protected a right to violently resist unlawful arrest and which placed guns in the hands of freedmen specifically to challenge unreconstructed Southern law enforcement? These questions are especially pertinent now, as individuals bring handguns to town hall meetings and assault rifles to presidential addresses, and as the Court held in McDonald that the right extends to all levels of government and to all levels of law enforcement. As Justice Breyer remarked in his Heller dissent, “to raise a self-defense question is not to answer it.” This piece attempts to formulate answers to the questions that the Second Amendment raises and will continue to raise in the area of self-defense against the police. And it concludes that for the problem of retail rebellion there is a solution: retail justice

Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, McDonald, and the Future of Corporate Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court began its 2009 Term by addressing the constitutional rights of corporations. It ended the Term by addressing the incorporated rights of the Constitution. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a five-member majority of the Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their own money on political advocacy. A corporation generally is no different than a natural person when it comes to the First Amendment - at least as it relates to political speech. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, a plurality of the Court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated through the Due Process Clause and applies to states and municipalities. Neither the federal government nor states may prevent persons from keeping and bearing arms in their homes for self-defense. Given this new world in both senses of incorporation, the time has come to explore the issue of Second Amendment rights and the corporate form. This Article will offer an analysis of the potential Second Amendment rights of the corporation. And it will, in the process, offer a more systematic critique of corporate constitutional rights in general

The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms

For many years, the Second Amendment was politely ignored, or summarily dismissed, by America\u27s legal academy. In recent years, however, more and more law professors have begun taking the Second Amendment seriously. Professor William Van Alstyne, one of the nation\u27s most respected Constitutional law professors, and the author of a leading Constitutional law casebook; offers his contribution in this essay. Van Alstyne suggests that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says: that individual citizens have a right, not merely a privilege, to own and carry firearms. He also commends the National Rifle Association for its constructive role as a defender of civil liberties. This essay was first published in 1994, in volume 43 of the Duke Law Journal, beginning on page 1,236. It is reprinted by permission