Comments in red below.
From: "Volokh, Eugene"
To: "firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu"
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:10 PM
Subject: New approach
Now I don’t understand. You say that “the notion of ‘positive
protection’ is a perversion o
A few points:
1. It is a misframing of the issue to put it into terms of
"self-defense". In the context of the social contract that
establishes the militia duty of mutual defense, "self-defense"
becomes "defense of the community", with oneself being a member if
Now I don’t understand. You say that “the notion of ‘positive
protection’ is a perversion of the Constitution,” and therefore laws
withdrawing such protection – e.g., allowing the killing of burglars, thieves,
etc. caught in the act – are constitutionally permissible simply beca
From: "Volokh, Eugene"
To: "firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu"
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: New approach
I agree that DeShaney says that failure to adequately enforce
the law isn’t a due process violation. But I don’t
I agree that DeShaney says that failure to adequately enforce
the law isn’t a due process violation. But I don’t think that disposes of the
question whether a law stripping classes of people of protection against
murder, kidnapping, theft, etc. is a due process violation.
From: "Volokh, Eugene"
To: "firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu"
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: New approach
(1) As I understand it, the claim is that the Fourteenth
Amendment, which provides that no state shall deny a pers
But the USSC has held that the government has no duty to act in general, only
in limited cases such protecting witness or people in custody. So, your claim
"you can't say . . . " is wrong.
The notion of "positive protection" is a perversion of the Constitution and not
the basis for making yo
(1) As I understand it, the claim is that the Fourteenth
Amendment, which provides that no state shall deny a person life or liberty
without due process, limits states' power to withdraw from people the
protections of the criminal law (e.g., the law against murdering those peopl
If my hypotheticals are obvious illegal acts if offered by
Congress, being denials of due process, that must be because stripping someone
of positive protection – the protection given by the criminalization of attacks
on or thefts from that person – is indeed a denial of due proc
