488 research outputs found

    3D Printers, Obsolete Firearm Supply Controls, and the Right To Build Self-Defense Weapons Under Heller

    Get PDF
    This Comment describes how 3D printers will render current firearm regulations obsolete by allowing individuals to easily produce firearms—production that, when exercised by law-abiding citizens, may be protected under the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The regulatory system will be undermined in two phases. First, printers will be able to produce the only regulated piece of a firearm, the frame. Second, the printing of complete guns may be realized as 3D print technology advances or firearm design evolves. These developments, which could cause substantial changes in how both criminals and legitimate consumers obtain firearms, could lead to outright prohibition of personal manufacture or specific bans on weapons made by 3D printers. District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to possess firearms, could be interpreted to constrain this particular regulatory response. Specifically, Heller may create a right for individuals to make their own weapons to be used in self-defense and may protect certain processes and materials involved in making firearms. Part I introduces 3D printers and explains which gun components they can already produce. Part II explains how firearms are presumptively distributed under federal regulations, describes the structure of the firearm industry, and discusses theories on how consumers and criminals actually obtain guns. Part III explains how 3D printers may change the way firearms are acquired, undermining or even rendering obsolete the current regulatory system. Part IV, after outlining the constitutional right to bear arms, interprets Heller as supporting an individual right for law-abiding citizens to make their own self-defense weapons, and explains why this interest is legitimate. Part IV also analyzes the extent to which Heller may extend Second Amendment protection to weapons made by additive manufacturing. The Conclusion summarizes and stresses the importance of 3D printers remaining unrestricted, irrespective of their influence on self-defense. Cite as: 42 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 447 (2012)

    3D Printers, Obsolete Firearm Supply Controls, and the Right To Build Self-Defense Weapons Under Heller

    Get PDF
    This Comment describes how 3D printers will render current firearm regulations obsolete by allowing individuals to easily produce firearms—production that, when exercised by law-abiding citizens, may be protected under the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The regulatory system will be undermined in two phases. First, printers will be able to produce the only regulated piece of a firearm, the frame. Second, the printing of complete guns may be realized as 3D print technology advances or firearm design evolves. These developments, which could cause substantial changes in how both criminals and legitimate consumers obtain firearms, could lead to outright prohibition of personal manufacture or specific bans on weapons made by 3D printers. District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to possess firearms, could be interpreted to constrain this particular regulatory response. Specifically, Heller may create a right for individuals to make their own weapons to be used in self-defense and may protect certain processes and materials involved in making firearms. Part I introduces 3D printers and explains which gun components they can already produce. Part II explains how firearms are presumptively distributed under federal regulations, describes the structure of the firearm industry, and discusses theories on how consumers and criminals actually obtain guns. Part III explains how 3D printers may change the way firearms are acquired, undermining or even rendering obsolete the current regulatory system. Part IV, after outlining the constitutional right to bear arms, interprets Heller as supporting an individual right for law-abiding citizens to make their own self-defense weapons, and explains why this interest is legitimate. Part IV also analyzes the extent to which Heller may extend Second Amendment protection to weapons made by additive manufacturing. The Conclusion summarizes and stresses the importance of 3D printers remaining unrestricted, irrespective of their influence on self-defense. Cite as: 42 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 447 (2012)

    Isovector nuclear spin-orbit interaction from chiral pion-nucleon dynamics

    Get PDF
    Using the two-loop approximation of chiral perturbation theory, we calculate the momentum and density dependent isovector nuclear spin-orbit strength Vls(p,kf)V_{ls}(p,k_f). This quantity is derived from the spin-dependent part of the interaction energy Σspin=i2σ(q×p)[Uls(p,kf)Vls(p,kf)τ3δ]\Sigma_{spin} = {i\over 2} \vec \sigma \cdot (\vec q \times\vec p)[U_{ls}(p,k_f)- V_{ls}(p,k_f)\tau_3 \delta] of a nucleon scattering off weakly inhomogeneous isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter. We find that iterated 1π1\pi-exchange generates at saturation density, kf0=272.7k_{f0}=272.7 MeV, an isovector nuclear spin-orbit strength at p=0p=0 of Vls(0,kf0)50V_{ls}(0,k_{f0}) \simeq 50 MeVfm2^2. This value is about 1.4 times the analogous isoscalar nuclear spin-orbit strength Uls(0,kf0)35U_{ls}(0,k_{f0})\simeq 35 MeVfm2^2 generated by the same two-pion exchange diagrams. We also calculate several relativistic 1/M-corrections to the isoscalar nuclear spin-orbit strength. In particular, we evaluate the contributions from irreducible two-pion exchange to Uls(p,kf)U_{ls}(p,k_f). The effects of the three-body diagrams constructed from the Weinberg-Tomozawa ππNN\pi\pi NN-contact vertex on the isoscalar nuclear spin-orbit strength are computed. We find that such relativistic 1/M-corrections are less than 20% of the isoscalar nuclear spin-orbit strength generated by iterated one-pion-exchange, in accordance with the expectation from chiral power counting.Comment: 15 pages, 8 figure

    Nuclear spin-orbit interaction from chiral pion-nucleon dynamics

    Get PDF
    Using the two-loop approximation of chiral perturbation theory, we calculate the momentum and density dependent nuclear spin-orbit strength Uls(p,kf)U_{ls}(p,k_f). This quantity is derived from the spin-dependent part of the interaction energy Σspin=i2σ(q×p)Uls(p,kf)\Sigma_{spin} = {i\over 2} \vec \sigma \cdot (\vec q \times\vec p) U_{ls}(p,k_f) of a nucleon scattering off weakly inhomogeneous isospin symmetric nuclear matter. We find that iterated 1π1\pi-exchange generates at saturation density, kf0=272.7k_{f0}=272.7 MeV, a spin-orbit strength at p=0p=0 of Uls(0,kf0)35U_{ls}(0,k_{f0})\simeq 35 MeVfm2^2 in perfect agreement with the empirical value used in the shell model. This novel spin-orbit strength is neither of relativistic nor of short range origin. The potential VlsV_{ls} underlying the empirical spin-orbit strength U~ls=Vlsrls2\widetilde U_{ls}= V_{ls} r_{ls}^2 becomes a rather weak one, Vls17V_{ls}\simeq 17 MeV, after the identification rls=mπ1r_{ls}= m_\pi^{-1} as suggested by the present calculation. We observe however a strong pp-dependence of Uls(p,kf0)U_{ls}(p,k_{f0}) leading even to a sign change above p=200p=200 MeV. This and other features of the emerging spin-orbit Hamiltonian which go beyond the usual shell model parametrization leave questions about the ultimate relevance of the spin-orbit interaction generated by 2π2\pi-exchange for a finite nucleus. We also calculate the complex-valued isovector single-particle potential UI(p,kf)+iWI(p,kf)U_I(p,k_f)+ i W_I(p,k_f) in isospin asymmetric nuclear matter proportional to τ3(NZ)/(N+Z)\tau_3 (N-Z)/(N+Z). For the real part we find reasonable agreement with empirical values and the imaginary part vanishes at the Fermi-surface p=kfp=k_f.Comment: 20 pages, 10 Figures, Accepted for publication in Nuclear Physics

    A study of acquisition and extinction of probability learning of mentally retarded subjects /

    Get PDF

    Technology Screens and Effects on Attention: A Meta-Analysis

    Get PDF
    This study looks at how technology screens have an effect on academic performance considering how technology is becoming relied upon more every day. A meta-analytic review that quantitively combines data was conducted to estimate effect sizes between technology screens and academic performance. The study held no restrictions on location or ethnicity. 12 studies were chosen, consisting of 31,844 total participants. Ethnicity, research design, and screen type were found to moderate the effect of screen time on academic performance. Theoretical implications and future research is also discussed in this study
    corecore