[mailto:d...@dklawoffice.com]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu>; 'List Firearms Reg'
<firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Sandy Hook parents suit against Remington
What is troubling is that PLCAA was written and intended to
Same reason that, for instance, state libel lawsuits stay in
state court even when there’s a federal First Amendment defense. “[I]t is now
settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a
federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if
I’m not sure that homicides per traffic stop are the relevant
data point for determining whether police work is one of the most “dangerous
jobs” – just as we probably wouldn’t measure the dangerousness of, say,
commercial fishing (from accidents, not homicides) on a
Folks: Sorry to bother you with one more promotional message,
but I just wanted to let you know that I set up a new Twitter feed,
@VolokhGuns, that will send out just our gun-related messages (mostly from
David Kopel and from me, though this coming week Nick Johnson's messages
Nick Johnson will be guest-blogging about Negroes and the Gun at the
Washington Post (on The Volokh Conspiracy) next week; the announcement is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/24/negroes-and-the-gun-the-black-tradition-of-arms/.
The blog is not at all
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf (2007-11 data). That's still
well below the Kleck Gertz numbers, and the results of the NSPOF study, but
well above the 1994 NCVS numbers -- even though the number of crimes decreased
markedly from 1994 to 2007-11.
Eugene
A few months ago, I saw a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report (based on
NCVS) mentioning an estimated number of defensive gun uses. This isn't the old
1994 one, but one from the last few years. But unfortunately I mislaid my
pointer to it; does anyone happen to know what the name of
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 8:17 PM
To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Whoops, found it -- the estimate is 235,000 DGUs
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf (2007-11 data). That's still
well below the Kleck Gertz numbers
Folks: Let's limit the discussion on this list to technical questions of
firearms regulation policy and law.
Eugene
From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Curley
(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
that such legislative stripping of the traditional
protection offered to life, liberty, and property isn’t a denial of life,
liberty, and property without due process?
Eugene
From: Phil Lee [mailto:maryland_al...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:40 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
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
verifiably stiffed him on a do not serve these
people poster, visible to the public, with no due process required
whatsoever.
On May 8, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu
wrote:
(1) The fundamental constitutional right to life appears,
I think
. [mailto:jol...@hamline.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:06 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Cc: C D Tavares; Firearms Reg, List
Subject: Re: New approach
But, IIRC, in every state some act reasonably perceived as criminal (usually
assault) by the decedent is required before self-defense becomes an option
Here's one more thought that might be helpful here: The Bill
of Rights, including the clause barring deprivation of life, liberty, or
property without due process, wasn't enacted as some self-contained
philosophical framework; it was enacted against a backdrop of English law
withdrawal of protection might be the old practice of
issuing wanted dead or alive posters. I wonder if that practice has ever
been legally tested?
Phil
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: C D Tavares c
this is my
core area of writing and teaching. But I think the thread has likely run its
course.
Eugene
From: James Heath [mailto:heath.seat...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Cc: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: California doctors
Well, the question was asked in First Am[endment] terms. (To
quote the earlier post to which I was responding, So the state saw a problem
with doctors imposing ideological values in the
name of medicine, and limited doctor's speech to prevent that. The AMA was on
the other
That a speaker is state-licensed and engaged in commerce is not itself a
justification for the state's restricting the speaker's speech. See, e.g.,
Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530 (1980). That the
speaker is a professional speaking to a client might justify some
I am not an expert on this corner of federal regulations, but
as I understand it, federal law largely bans the importation and manufacturing
of armor piercing ammunition, 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(a)(7), but doesn't ban the
sale or possession of such ammunition. (I haven't see
. An earlier post,
though, suggested the contrary. Just so we don’t talk past each other, could I
have a clear understanding of what’s proposed?
Eugene
From: Phil Lee [mailto:maryland_al...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; Firearmsregprof
Subject
Well, I'm not sure why one would think that the
confidentiality of a doctor and a lawyer would be equivalent, given that the
law does not -- and to my knowledge, never has -- provided for such
equivalence. See, for instance, Cal. Civil Code sec. 998, which expressly
provides
other, could I
have a clear understanding of what’s proposed?
Eugene
From: Phil Lee [mailto:maryland_al...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; Firearmsregprof
Subject: Re: doctor boundaries
And yet this appeal case Eugene cites rejected
Well, the California statute applies only to sexual orientation change efforts
for patients under the age of 18, and applies only to actual efforts to change
sexual orientation, on the theory that there's pretty solid evidence that such
efforts are likely to be unhelpful or even harmful. See
is medicine (and offering advice where he lacks
training).
Phil
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: firearmsregprof
firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edumailto:firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 7:22 PM
, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
The question on the table is what questions doctors may ask. It doesn't take
much authority to ask questions -- just the same authority (flowing partly
from the First Amendment and partly from just normal liberty) for you to ask
me a question
It seems to me the Miranda principle cuts in precisely the
opposite direction. Recall that Miranda applies only when a police officer
questions a suspect who is in custody. Even though a police officer always has
some degree of coercive authority, non-custodial questioning
If you want to propose that the government be limited in requiring
doctors to provide certain information about patients, that could be perfectly
sensible. But restricting doctors' First Amendment rights to ask questions
because maybe that information will eventually end up in the
I’m skeptical of talk of “boundary violation[s],” which is
rather ill-defined term. It seems to me that if doctors want to ask patients
about things that they think are relevant to the patient’s health, they should
be entirely free to do so. To be sure, if they give the
I appreciate the concern about doctor-patient confidentiality,
and especially psychiatrist-patient confidentiality. But the law on this, as I
understand is, is complex; doctors, for instance, must often report gunshot
wounds and similar wounds (am I right about that?),
) by a
professional boundary. What he shouldn't be doing is advising outside of his
professional expertise which is medicine (and offering advice where he lacks
training).
Phil
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edumailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: firearmsregprof
Interesting -- I tracked down the transcript, CBS News
Transcripts, SHOW: CBS MORNING NEWS (6:30 AM ET), April 27, 1994, WASHINGTON DC
POLICE TRACKING GUN CRIMES WITH COMPUTERS FIND A PATTERN TO VIOLENCE AND
KILLING, and it seems the data is a bit different:
JIM STEWART
Well, try to speak in court if you are a witness after the
judge orders you to be quiet. Testimony is an area where both speech
restrictions and speech compulsions are routine.
This isn’t to say that Prof. Blocher’s argument is sound –
analogies between
Folks: This list is indeed limited to discussion of the law and
policy of firearms regulation; we should avoid discussions that are far removed
from that, such as discussions of the proper relations between nations. Thanks,
Eugene
A pre-2009 Washington state
lawhttp://law.justia.com/codes/washington/2005/title9/9.41.170.html, under
which Yasin Ibrahim was convicted, required aliens to get a license . (A new
statutehttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.173 sets up a
different licensing scheme for alien gun
I've seen claims that colonial militias sometimes excluded poor whites, but I
can't find any really authoritative source on the subject. Do any of you know
of evidence that this did indeed happen? Let me know, please. Many thanks,
Eugene Volokh
___
A friend of mine asked me for sample syllabuses for 14-week seminar on the
Second Amendment (and perhaps state constitutional rights to keep and bear
arms) - if you have one that you'd like to share, can you please either e-mail
it to him, at carroll...@aol.commailto:carroll...@aol.com, or
Folks: I'm looking for an authoritative list of U.S. jurisdictions in which
legally owning a handgun (not getting a license to carry, but being able to
legally own a handgun in one's home) is quite difficult - for instance, because
there's a discretionary licensing scheme, a long (more than a
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) bars gun possession by, among others, anyone who [has]
been committed to a mental institution - apparently at any time in the past.
Is there any procedure through which people who have been (properly) committed
to a mental institution may have that somehow set aside or
Folks: I wanted to get some brightly colored imitation guns - the bright color
is required by California law - so that I could show them at some talks I'm
giving. The ASP Red Guns look interesting, but I can't figure out from the
descriptions whether they have working slides, removable
I agree that the media often errs badly, especially about guns
but also otherwise. Check out the Boston Globe article about Bishop's killing
her brother 24 years before: the girl had fought with her brother in the 1986
incident, then shot him with a shotgun and fled down the
of the statement
(whether put precisely as Bishop's not having a concealed carry license, or
imprecisely as the article itself put it) helps the pro-gun-rights side.
Eugene
From: Raymond Kessler [mailto:rkess...@sulross.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:36 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
I appreciate Joe's general point, and it may well be correct. My
point was simply that this particular imprecision was probably not an example
of the practice that Joe describes.
From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf
Folks: Do you by any chance know of any upstanding law-abiding
non-U.S.-citizens in Massachusetts - preferably women - who might be inclined
to be plaintiffs in a challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of
pepper spray and Mace by noncitizens? Let me know, please, if this gives you
I think we'd need a more specific definition of fear-mongering
for this to work. Much fear is perfectly rational, and a sound basis for
lawmaking. The Revolution was fought partly because of a fear of further
British abuses. The Constitution was created because of various
: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:18 AM
To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Playing the fear card in the 2nd Amend. incorp. debate.
I think we'd need
Hmm; didn't she say, I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the
Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional
right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't
think of one? If so, then I'm not sure that cases dealing with
A question from the Harvard Law School Target Shooting Club (which was founded
by my brother Sasha several years ago) - any suggestions for them? Thanks,
Eugene
From: Michelle Yang [mailto:my...@jd10.law.harvard.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:51 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Subject: Fw: Re: New
2009 15:44:40 -0700
Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
Sure, but I take it that those are *possession* limits, not
carrying limits, right?
Can you carry without possessing?
--
Charles Curley /\ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software
To: Firearmsregprof
Subject: Re: Sherrifs and police chiefs changing their mind about shall-issue
after
shall-issue laws were implemented
On Jun 8, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Is there some set of quotes of sheriffs and police
chiefs changing their mind about shall-issue
Armed with one of the quotes, I managed to find a similar list that has
citations; it's at http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf .
Eugene
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
Is there some set of quotes of sheriffs and police chiefs
changing their mind about shall-issue after shall-issue laws were implemented?
I'd love to see them (and forward them to someone with whom I was talking about
this). Many thanks,
Eugene
why
people are afraid of others' exercising that right.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:firearmsregprof-
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Raymond Kessler
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:17 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
concealed carry permits, or keeping a
gun at home without a permit) will indeed be used to murder or commit
manslaughter.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Kessler [mailto:rkess...@sulross.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; firearmsregprof
Is the NRA's petition in NRA v. City of Chicago, filed today, available online
somewhere? Thanks,
Eugene
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
I got a copy of the petition, and posted it at
http://volokh.com/files/nrapetition.pdf
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Joe Waldron [mailto:jwald...@halcyon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:45 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Cc: 'firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu'
Subject
, Illinois 62794-9233
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 12:59:46 PM
Subject: State law requiring municipalities to report within six months on
their weapons laws
I recall
Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871), struck down a statute banning
open carrying of handguns, on the grounds that the state right to bear
arms provision protected such carrying. But in State v. Wilburn, 66
Tenn. 57 (1872), the court upheld a similar statute because it had
exactly one
Do any of you by any chance know of any law review
articles on judicial review of administrative gun possession/carry
permit decisions - how it actually operates, whether a state or federal
constitutional right to bear arms requires independent judicial review
in such cases, and the
Am I right that in New York City, one may not possess any gun until one
turns 21 (except if one is under direct supervision of someone who has a
permit to possess a rifle or shotgun, and in a few other circumstances)?
I think this is so, see New York City Admin. Code sec. 10-305, but I
wanted to
From: Benjamin Wolf [mailto:benjaminw...@ymail.com]
http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/incorporating-the-2nd-amend
ment-against-the-states-kirkland-ellis-is-on-the-case/
Incorporating the 2nd Amendment Against the States - Kirkland Ellis is
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:41 PM
To: 'Firearms Regulation List UCLA'
Subject: RE: Negligence liability for proprietors who excludeguns
fromtheirproperty
I much appreciate Yuri's post on this, but I do want to suggest
The question of whether proprietors who enforce no-guns rules
can be held liable for crimes against visitors, on the theory that the
rule contributed to the crime and the proprietor was negligent, is an
interesting one. But I'm pretty sure that we can't figure out the
answer the legal
Looks quite interesting from the abstract, though I haven't read it yet:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1144026
Why Did the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Fail in the Late
Nineteenth Century?
Gerard N. Magliocca
Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis
June 1,
A quick question: Certain rifles and weapons are sometimes labeled
high powered -- often by pro-assault-weapons-ban folks, but also by
people who seem to support gun rights (e.g., people organizing certain
shooting events). But I take it that the power of a shooting rests on
(1) the mass of the
Posted by Eugene Volokh:
The First (?) Post-*Heller* Case Holding a Gun Control Law
Unconstitutional:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_11-2009_01_17.shtml#123171265
1
That's [1]U.S. v. Arzberger. The gun control law is the part of [2]18
U.S.C. 3142(c)(1)(B) that requires that
My recollection is that some state laws ban possession of guns by
people convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors. Some of these may be
within the rubric of domestic violence, but not require any violent
act; others apply to other misdemeanors. Can anyone refresh my
recollection, please? Many
I thought I'd pass along my blog post on this recent decision
(thanks to Dan Gifford for pointing it out to me):
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_14-2008_09_20.shtml#122175973
7
[Eugene Volokh, September 18, 2008 at 1:42pm
Any suggestions from the academics on this list? If you have some, please
e-mail them to Prof. Nuno directly. Thanks,
Eugene
From: Stephen A. Nuno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:28 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: An 1831 Source Supporting the
IndividualRights View of the Second Amendment:
Posted by Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: An 1830 Source Casually Assuming
theIndividual Rights View of the Second Amendment:
Posted
Please send responses to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks,
Eugene
From: patrick seth williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:39 PM
Subject: 2nd Amendment and Literature
. . . . I'm a PhD student
gangs that tend to be organized along ethnic minority lines*.
Eugene
From: Joseph E. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 2:42 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; List Firearms Reg
Subject: RE: Heller case's resultant
Chicago's) has to be
social/cultural not technological (gun bans, etc.). It really IS the
person behind the gun, car, or whatever.
Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/27/08 4:49 PM
Oh, there is plenty of solid data that the overwhelming
majority of homicide
Has anyone collected statements from police and legislators that
shall-issue hasn't led to the gun misuse that they had expected? I'm
particularly looking for statements from people who at first thought it
would be bad, but after some experience with the system changed their
minds. I'm
Can anyone please point me to a good discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of shotguns vs. handguns for self-defense?
The more specific the cite, the better. Many thanks,
Eugene
___
To post, send message to
Is there a compendium of English and Colonial gun control laws
out there? I know Bellesiles claimed to have been researching this, and
my sense is Prof. Churchill has looked at some, too, but I'm wondering
if there's some place out there where they're well organized. Thanks,
Very sorry to trouble you, but I had a question I wanted to ask
people who are up on the technical rules of federal and California law
related to non-dealer gun transfers. Assume the following:
X's grandfather dies in state S.
X's stepgrandmother gives X, when X visits
What would you folks recommend as the best articles on the
proper standards of review under an individual right to bear arms
(federal or state)? Thanks,
Eugene
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe,
://www.constitution.org/ussc/332-046jr.htm
Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 (1970)
Apodaca v. Oregon 406 U.S. 404 (1972)
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
The better analogy would be to
federal-but-not-state
prohibitions that persist even
: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:54 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; List Firearms Reg
Subject: RE: The REPUBLICAN ... from New York.
The simple conclusion is a state infringing RKBA means
its militia is not well-regulated according
.
Therefore, any assertion of a right is to be construed as restricting
government powers to the narrowest extent the language allows, and that
includes all governments the language does not forbid it to be applied to.
Q.E.D.
Volokh, Eugene wrote
/
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh,
Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:40 PM
To: List Firearms Reg
Subject: RE: The REPUBLICAN ... from New York.
By the way, here's one
who, IIRC, took the view that the Second restricted both
levels of government?
Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/25/07 3:40 PM
By the way, here's one reason that Barron strikes me as an
entirely correct given the original understanding: *** Madison
. In fact, outside Barron and its progeny, this may have been
the dominant view but I haven't read enough of those cases to say for
sure.
Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/25/07 2:11 PM
Joe: I'm puzzled -- isn't it clear that before the Fourteenth
Amendment, the dominant view
Recall that Barron rested on the view -- in my view, a correct
reading of the original meaning of the Bill of Rights -- that none of
the rights in the federal Bill of Rights applied to the states. This is
quite consistent with the notion that some of the rights are natural
rights; it just
Joe: I'm puzzled -- isn't it clear that before the Fourteenth
Amendment, the dominant view (not the only view, but the dominant one,
eventually adopted in Barron v. Baltimore) was that gun control was
indeed a matter for state-by-state decisionmaking (at least setting
aside conflicts with federal
By the way, I just noticed the subject line of the earlier post --
folks, let's please keep things on a thoughtful, academic level.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh,
Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Sorry if this has already been discussed on the list, but could
someone point me, please, to the specific regulations or other documents
describing how information -- including mental illness adjudication
information -- is to be gathered for NICS? As you might gather, I'm
trying to figure
Folks: Just a reminder that the focus of this list is the law
and policy of firearms regulation, discussed on a level helpful to
people doing academic research in the field. General questions of
police misconduct are not, it seems to me, squarely on-topic (though I
realize that they're
I thought I'd take the liberty of passing along a pointer to our
Volokh Conspiracy comments on the D.C. Circuit Second Amendment case --
some are squarely on the law, and others discuss some political matters
related to the decision. They should all be available at
http://volokh.com/posts/1173482774.shtml
[Eugene Volokh, March 9, 2007 at 6:26pm
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_04-2007_03_10.shtml#11734827
74 ] Trackbacks
http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=url=http%3a%2f%2fvol
I quickly cobbled this together in response to the free state just
means state of the union, free from the federal government argument --
can anyone point me to a more thorough analysis of this particular
terminological point? Thanks,
Eugene
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_18-2007_02_24.shtml#1172173543
[Eugene Volokh, February 22, 2007 at 2:45pm
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_18-2007_02_24.shtml#1172173543 ]
Trackbacks
Alan Korwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) asks:
Request for info:
Kennesaw, Georgia was first, in 1982, to pass a law requiring
homeowners to keep a gun handy. Other cities followed suit. I
believe Virgin, Utah has one, and I recall hearing of others.
Now Glenn Reynolds, the famous law prof at U.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_26-2006_12_02.shtml#1165014698
[Eugene Volokh, December 1, 2006 at 6:11pm
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_26-2006_12_02.shtml#1165014698 ] 0
Trackbacks http://volokh.com/posts/1165014698.trackbacks.shtml / Possibly
More Trackbacks
Has innocent until proven guilty been a fundamental principle for
purposes of *bail* determinations? As I understand it, there have long
been presumptions that certain crimes (e.g., capital offenses) are
unbailable; this sounds like an extension of those presumptions, but
nothing terribly
Folks: Let's stick with the law and policy of firearms regulation; and
let's also recognize legal terms when we see them (since this is a list
on which legal discussions are quite important). Duty is a word that
has (at least) two meanings; it can mean either moral obligation or
legal
Folks: The purpose of this list is to provide helpful
information to list members for the purposes of their academic work.
It's thus especially helpful if people's comments focus on subjects on
which they have expertise. At least, if people want to express
tentative opinions on subjects
I read the paper, and found it very interesting. But I'm pretty
sure that a duty to rescue doesn't require armed citizens to intervene
with their arms; the duty to rescue requires only essentially risk-free
rescues, and while a concealed gun would surely make many rescues much
less risky, I
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
