Second Amendment After Heller and Mcdonald Law Review
Am J Public Health. 2011 Nov; 101(11): 2021–2026.
Changing the Ramble Mural for Firearms: The US Supreme Court's Recent Second Amendment Decisions
Jon S. Vernick, JD, MPH, 
Lainie Rutkow, JD, PhD, MPH, Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH, and Stephen P. Teret, JD, MPH
Accepted January 30, 2011.
Abstruse
In ii recent cases—with important implications for public health practitioners, courts, and researchers—the U.s. Supreme Court changed the landscape for judging the constitutionality of firearm laws under the Constitution's 2nd Amendment.
In District of Columbia five Heller (2008), the court determined for the showtime time that the Second Amendment grants individuals a personal right to possess handguns in their dwelling. In McDonald five City of Chicago (2010), the court concluded that this right affects the powers of state and local governments.
The court identified broad categories of gun laws—other than handgun bans—that remain presumptively valid simply did not provide a standard to guess their constitutionality. We discuss ways that researchers can assistance decision makers.
HAVING GONE Virtually lxx years without deciding a instance straight addressing the United states Constitution'southward 2d Amendment "right to keep and carry arms," beginning in 2008 the US Supreme Courtroom decided 2 such cases with important implications for the public's health. In Commune of Columbia v Heller ane (decided June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court concluded for the first fourth dimension that the Constitution grants individuals a personal correct to possess handguns in their abode for protection. In its conclusion, the court struck down a 1976 District of Columbia police force that outlawed most handgun ownership.
Merely the Heller decision left several of import questions unanswered, specially whether the Second Amendment affects state or local firearm laws or simply limits the power of the federal authorities. In McDonald 5 Metropolis of Chicago 2 (decided June 28, 2010), the Supreme Court determined that the Second Subpoena does indeed apply to laws enacted past land and local governments. However, the McDonald determination also leaves disquisitional issues undecided, issues that lower courts must now accost and that may affect the risk of firearm violence for millions of Americans.
Firearms were associated with more than 240 000 deaths from 2000 to 2007, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths. During that same period, more than than 530 000 boosted nonfatal firearm injuries were treated in hospital emergency departments.3 Laws at the federal, state, and local levels seek to address this public health burden.4 Evaluations of a number of these laws indicate public health and safety benefits; for other laws, the furnishings remain controversial.v–eight
Nosotros briefly review the history of how the Supreme Court and lower federal courts initially interpreted the Second Amendment and examine how the Heller and McDonald decisions have changed that interpretation. Nosotros also hash out the implications for researchers, policymakers, and the courts.
2d AMENDMENT DECISIONS BEFORE HELLER
According to the 2d Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a costless State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."9 Prior to the Heller decision, there was lilliputian disagreement amid the courts about this language'due south meaning. In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had always invalidated whatever police force every bit a violation of the Second Amendment.
Two principal legal reasons explained this virtual unanimity. The first involves something lawyers call the "incorporation doctrine." When the Constitution was starting time ratified, most of its provisions specified the extent and limits of federal authorities authority. Even the familiar protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights—such equally the First Subpoena'due south freedom of speech and religion clauses—initially afflicted just the powers of the federal government, not the state governments.ten In 1868, nonetheless, the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly forbidding states to "deprive whatever person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."eleven Every bit a event, the Supreme Court began to decide that almost of the Bill of Rights guarantees were included in—or "incorporated" into—the more general linguistic communication of the 14th Amendment as a limit on land (not just federal) powers. But the courtroom has never accepted the argument that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated en masse, preferring a case-past-case (right-by-right) arroyo.12
Until the McDonald determination, the Second Amendment remained one of the very few parts of the Neb of Rights not so "incorporated." In fact, in a pair of 19th-century cases—United States v Cruikshank (1876)xiii and Presser v Illinois (1886)xiv—the court constitute that the 2nd Amendment limited merely the federal authorities. Numerous country laws affecting gun ownership have been upheld on this basis.15,16
The second reason why most courts, before Heller and McDonald, had little trouble upholding gun laws involves the language of the Second Amendment itself, specifically the "militia" clause preceding the "correct to keep and bear arms." In 1939, the Supreme Courtroom decided United States 5 Miller, a case in which ii individuals challenged their criminal indictment under a federal law restricting sawed-off shotguns.17 Because Miller involved a federal police force, the before Cruikshank and Presser decisions were not straight applicative. In Miller, the court upheld the indictments, ruling that the Second Subpoena did not protect the right to keep and bear a firearm that did non take "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"18 (come across also Lewis v United States nineteen). Miller was a relatively cursory opinion without substantial discussion of the basis for its ruling. Nevertheless, lower courts routinely upheld federal and state firearm laws citing Miller.20,21
The start crack in this unanimity amidst the federal courts came in 1999 with United States v Emerson.22 As part of a divorce proceeding, Sacha Emerson received a restraining order forbidding her estranged husband from threatening her or their child. Mr. Emerson had previously purchased a handgun. But under federal police, individuals subject to certain restraining orders relating to intimate partner violence are non permitted to possess firearms.23
Emerson challenged the constitutionality of the police force in federal district courtroom. District approximate Samuel Cummings agreed with Emerson, concluding that, unlike prior federal decisions, the Second Amendment granted individuals a "right to go along and behave arms" regardless of any relationship with militia service. He besides adamant that the federal constabulary violated that individual 2d Amendment correct.24 On appeal, the Fifth Excursion Court of Appeals largely agreed with Judge Cummings' interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment. Only the court even so upheld the federal constabulary in question, concluding that the 2d Subpoena right could exist subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions that are reasonable."25
District OF COLUMBIA v HELLER (2008)
Well before Emerson, a lively debate had emerged among scholars regarding the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.26 Some more often than not favored the traditional estimation endorsed by about all courts, arguing that it was justifiable past the Constitution's language and history.27,28 Others argued that the 2nd Subpoena should be seen as protecting a personal right to ain guns unrelated to militia service, a right that might affect the constitutionality of some gun laws. These authors urged the courts—peculiarly the Supreme Courtroom—to reinterpret the 2d Subpoena on the basis of its history, assay of the words in the subpoena itself, and early views of its meaning.29,30 In 2008, with Commune of Columbia v Heller, the courtroom accepted that proposition.
Since 1976, the District of Columbia had banned the private possession of handguns that were not owned and registered prior to September of that twelvemonth.31 Long guns (i.e., rifles and shotguns) could still be possessed in the home. Dick Anthony Heller sought a registration certificate for a handgun he wished to possess in his dwelling house, and the Commune of Columbia refused. 5 other individuals, including the original atomic number 82 plaintiff, Shelly Parker, joined Heller in challenging the District's law. None alleged that he or she was a member of whatsoever official militia. The federal district courtroom rejected their arguments, relying heavily on the Supreme Courtroom's Miller decision. The court also noted that all other federal courts had declined to follow the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' reasoning in Emerson.32 The plaintiffs appealed and the US Courtroom of Appeals for the Commune of Columbia reversed, striking downwards the District's handgun ban.33 The District then appealed the instance to the US Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Heller instance, this represented the first time since Miller in 1939 that the Supreme Courtroom had even considered a case straight addressing the Second Subpoena. As a result, stakeholders on both sides of the issue mobilized in an effort to influence the court. More than xxx friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) briefs were filed with the Supreme Court by groups equally diverse every bit the American Public Health Clan, the National Burglarize Association (NRA), and the NAACP.34 These amicus briefs offered legal arguments as well as public wellness and criminological research nigh the pros and cons of gun ownership and regulation.
Writing for a 5 to 4 majority of the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the Court of Appeals that the District of Columbia's handgun ban was unconstitutional. In a lengthy opinion, Scalia reviewed the 2nd Amendment's text, the history of its ratification, early commentary on its scope, and past cases. He relied on a bevy of historical material also as some of the contempo scholarly writings to affirm that the Second Amendment protects an individual right not limited by service in a militia. To reach this decision, Scalia interpreted the Miller conclusion differently than most other federal courts, determining, in role, that Miller means
only that the Second Subpoena does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.35
Other weapons, notably handguns, which Scalia described every bit "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the abode," 36 clearly fall inside the protection of the 2nd Subpoena.
However, critically for public health and safety, Scalia as well acknowledged that "[fifty]ike nigh rights, the correct secured by the Second Amendment is non unlimited."37 In an oft-quoted portion of the opinion, Scalia expanded on some of these limitations:
[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms past felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the conveying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and regime buildings, or laws imposing weather condition and qualifications on the commercial auction of arms.38
Scalia farther assured the reader that the court identifies "these presumptively lawful regulatory measures but as examples; our listing does not purport to exist exhaustive."39 In fact, elsewhere in the opinion, the court also mentioned prohibitions on the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons" and "laws regulating the storage of firearms to preclude accidents."xl
Despite its length, the Heller decision left at least iii of import questions unanswered. Although Justice Scalia listed certain presumptively valid gun laws, some of them—such every bit "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"—were described in very full general terms. Does this mean that whatsoever such conditions on gun purchases are valid? If not, then a second unanswered question is what standard should be applied to judge the constitutionality of gun laws other than handgun bans? Equally Scalia acknowledged, other constitutional rights are too not absolute. Perhaps the virtually famous instance: despite the First Amendment'due south freedom of speech protections, the government may notwithstanding prohibit (falsely) shouting "fire" in public places.41 For those other constitutional rights, there are by and large standards that the court applies to determine whether a constabulary affecting those rights may nevertheless be upheld. Scalia did not supply a specific standard.
In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer specifically criticized the majority opinion for this omission. Breyer suggested that the court adopt an "involvement-balancing" approach requiring judges to weigh "the interests protected by the 2nd Subpoena on one side and the governmental public-safety concerns on the other."42 Scalia rejected Breyer's suggestion, believing that standard to be inappropriate, and concluded that the standard should be immune to develop over time in future cases.
The third major unanswered question from Heller is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual "right to keep and bear arms" that cannot exist infringed by state or local laws or whether information technology applies only to federal laws. Considering Washington, DC, is a federal enclave, the question never specifically arose in Heller. This is precisely the effect raised by McDonald five Metropolis of Chicago.
SECOND AMENDMENT CASES IMMEDIATELY AFTER HELLER
Fifty-fifty before McDonald was decided, lower courts were faced with new challenges to gun laws. Overwhelmingly, the courts upheld the constitutionality of these laws. In some cases, the courts merely applied Scalia'south linguistic communication in Heller regarding presumptively valid gun laws, as in the challenges brought by criminal defendants against the federal law barring gun ownership past bedevilled felons.43 Some courts practical one of the existing standards of review identified by the Supreme Court for other constitutional protections, simply at that place was fiddling consistency in these decisions.
In other cases involving state or local laws, however, some courts relied on the much older Cruikshank and Presser cases, concluding that the 2nd Amendment—even after Heller—did not limit state or local gun laws. These courts often acknowledged that the Supreme Court, not the lower federal courts, retained the prerogative of overruling or limiting its ain prior decisions.44,45 In McDonald 5 City of Chicago, the courtroom did just that.
McDONALD v CITY OF CHICAGO (2010)
Otis McDonald and several other plaintiffs were Chicago, Illinois residents who wished to keep handguns in their homes for protection, simply a Chicago law had essentially banned handguns since 1982. Oak Park, Illinois, had a similar law on its books, and the courts combined challenges brought by Oak Park residents, the NRA, and other groups into one decision. Both the district courtroom and the Courtroom of Appeals upheld the laws in question citing Cruikshank and Presser.
In a five to four conclusion—with the aforementioned 5 justices in the bulk as in Heller—the Supreme Court reversed. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito began by noting that Cruikshank and Presser were decided prior to the Supreme Courtroom's more modern "selective incorporation" approach. To determine whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated via the 14th Amendment'southward due process clause as a limit on country ability, Alito wrote that the relevant research was
whether the right to continue and acquit arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, or… whether this correct is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.46
For Alito, the court's decision in Heller and its review of the history of the Second Amendment made it articulate that a correct to self-defense force in the home with a handgun is indeed securely rooted in history and tradition and therefore must be incorporated. Alito besides concluded that historical evidence both before and "immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Subpoena only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered central."47 Amongst the arguments that Alito rejected was the assertion by Chicago and Oak Park that the 2nd Amendment should be treated differently, in that it "differs from all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights because it concerns the right to possess a deadly implement and thus has implications for public safety."48
Alito responded that "the right to continue and bear arms, still, is not the only constitutional correct that has controversial public safety implications."48 The municipalities too argued that incorporating the Second Amendment would "stifle experimentation" by states and municipalities to address the specifics of local levels of violence and would simply lead to "all-encompassing and plush litigation." Alito rejected these claims as well.49
Importantly, Alito repeated Scalia'south reassurance from Heller that the 2d Amendment right is non accented and that certain long-standing types of gun laws are presumptively valid. Withal, one time once again the court declined to provide a standard for lower courts to apply in judging other gun laws. This prompted a spirited portion of the dissent by Justice Breyer, complaining that "judges do not know the answers to the kinds of empirically based questions that will often determine the demand for detail forms of gun regulation."50
IMPLICATIONS
The Heller and McDonald decisions accept of import implications for the courts, policymakers, and researchers. Also, how these groups respond to the decisions will take of import implications for the public.
For the Courts
Immediately following both the Heller and McDonald decisions, individuals and pro-gun interest groups challenged a host of federal, state, and local gun laws. The courts, therefore, have been forced to utilise the general principles of the 2 cases just without guidance from the Supreme Court about a specific standard to govern the constitutionality of a given gun constabulary. At i cease of the spectrum, broad handgun bans are clearly impermissible. At the other, sure laws, such as barring felons from having guns, are presumptively valid. But what will be the status of the plethora of laws falling somewhere in betwixt? What about laws banning just specific types of handguns, such as so-called "junk guns"? What virtually limits on the number of handguns that can exist purchased at any given time (known every bit 1-handgun-per-month laws)? Or prohibitions on those convicted of misdemeanor (rather than felony) crimes from owning firearms?
One of the get-go post-McDonald cases involved precisely this blazon of misdemeanor brake. In United States 5 Skoien, the federal law barring gun ownership by people convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanors was at issue. A 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals initially concluded that the law violated the Second Amendment.51 However, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals then agreed to review the decision and upheld the law.
The full Court of Appeals applied, in part, a standard often called "intermediate scrutiny" (considering the burden on the government in defending its law resides somewhere between the other 2 commonly used constitutional standards, the "rational basis" test and "strict scrutiny" standards). Under intermediate scrutiny, the court concluded that the federal constabulary would be valid if the government could show that the law in question was "essentially related to an important government objective."52 To utilize this standard, the courtroom relied heavily on research regarding the relationship between domestic violence and firearms, recidivism among domestic abusers, and the hazard of guns in the home more often than not.
Under almost any standard of review, the courts are likely to consider, amid other factors, whether the law in question promotes public health and condom goals. This will necessarily involve examining public health, criminology, or other social scientific discipline inquiry. Courts must therefore have admission to the relevant inquiry and be able to comprehend its significant, including balancing conflicting claims in the contentious area of guns and violence. The demand for judges to have greater facility with scientific evidence has long been recognized.53,54
For Policymakers
Probably the safest grade of immediate post-Heller and mail service-McDonald prediction is for some uncertainty nearly which gun laws (other than handgun bans) volition be upheld and which judged unconstitutional. In such a climate, there may be a spooky consequence for policymakers contemplating new laws intended to reduce firearm violence. Legislators may remember Heller's assertion that many dissimilar types of gun laws remain presumptively valid.
In addition, laws that focus upstream (as public wellness professionals often abet) on gun makers and sellers, rather than gun buyers and owners, may be less likely to present Second Amendment problems. Laws requiring safer firearm design—for example, devices to preclude accidental discharge or use by a child—can promote public wellness without interfering with an individual's right to own a gun.55 Similarly, laws improving oversight of gun dealers and targeting illegal traffickers may non implicate the cadre Second Amendment correct of gun ownership in the home identified by the Supreme Courtroom.56
For policymakers proposing new gun laws, establishing an evidence-based legislative tape may be especially important. This may hateful holding hearings at which researchers and other experts tin testify nigh the scientific basis for new laws and including language in the preamble of the bill itself justifying the law. Courts ofttimes rely on such information. The city councils of the District of Columbia and Chicago followed this arroyo when rewriting their gun laws after the applicable court decisions. Each city enacted new laws—short of a handgun ban—intended to brand information technology hard for high-run a risk people to obtain firearms.57,58 Aspects of the District of Columbia and Chicago laws were immediately challenged. These cases are pending.
Governments defending existing laws may notice it helpful to partner with a variety of groups. Some involvement groups and constabulary firms offer pro bono legal representation or other assistance. As in both Heller and McDonald, public wellness organizations, biomedical groups, and researchers (as warranted past the show) can provide friend-of-the-courtroom briefs to aid courts.
For Researchers
Researchers must be prepared to help judges and policymakers. Researchers can work with policymakers to interpret scientific findings into sound public policy. They tin assist courts directly by serving as good witnesses at trials helping judges navigate complex (and sometimes alien) enquiry.
Researchers can also anticipate the kinds of gun laws virtually likely to face ramble challenges and conduct new inquiry to inform decision makers. Many gun laws have never been carefully evaluated. Merely relevant enquiry need not be limited to direct evaluations of the public wellness impact of gun laws. Unbiased studies that consider possible gamble and protective factors for violence may likewise exist useful for courts and policymakers.
Nearly gun laws tin can exist divided into i of 3 categories: laws addressing potentially loftier-risk people, firearms, and uses or contexts.59 In each of these areas, additional research can assist determination makers. Every bit in the Skoien decision, developing a better agreement of which aspects of individuals' prior criminal, mental health, substance abuse, or other history increase their risk for violence will allow courts to assess the potential public rubber benefits of new or existing laws. Several states ban or regulate categories of firearms deemed high risk, including assault weapons, poorly made handguns, and handguns without sure rubber features.60 Some of these laws have already been challenged. In Heller, Justice Scalia identified laws restricting the carrying of "unsafe and unusual" weapons equally presumptively valid. Enquiry tin assistance courts decide whether some guns are "dangerous and unusual" plenty to warrant regulating them.
Finally, firearms in some contexts or places may be riskier than in others. Federal police, for example, forbids guns in school zones,61 and 18 states require guns to exist stored safely when non in use.62 Heller emphasizes the correct to accept a handgun in one's home. Research may assist courts in determining whether or how to extend the correct to other, potentially high-risk places.
New inquiry and analysis conducted past legal scholars and historians tin also assist courts and policymakers. Research tin examine how the language of the Second Amendment was adult, interpreted, and applied to specific types of laws throughout the nation's history. Scholars tin also consider and recommend to courts advisable ways to analyze Second Amendment cases on the ground of existing principles of jurisprudence, including standards of review.
Once a study is completed, researchers should consider publishing findings in forums that are easily accessible to judges and policymakers. In addition to peer-reviewed biomedical or social science journals, researchers might also consider secondary publication in law journals or reviews available in legal databases such as Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis.
CONCLUSIONS
In the pages of this periodical in 1993, an commodity concluded:
At some time in the futurity, the Supreme Court may, in fact, overrule Presser and Miller and grant to the NRA and others the interpretation of the Second Amendment they seek. Until that time, notwithstanding, public health advocates should empathize that the Second Amendment poses no existent obstacle to the implementation of even broad gun control legislation.63(p1776)
That time has arrived. Public wellness researchers and advocates must at present exist prepared to assist courts and policymakers every bit we accept described.
For at present, however, the full impact of these two cases remains unclear. But if policymakers and others fear acting to protect public health and safety considering of the decisions that courts might make in the future, this could have far-reaching implications for the millions of Americans who wish to live complimentary from the threat of firearm violence.
Human Participant Protection
No protocol approval was needed for this research considering no human participants were involved.
References
1. District of Columbia five Heller, 128 SCt 2783 (2008)
two. McDonald v Urban center of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020 (2010)
3. Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention Spider web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html. Accessed June xiv, 2011
four. Land Laws and Published Ordinances—Firearms, 2007 Washington, DC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; 2008 [Google Scholar]
five. Vernick JS, Webster DW, Vittes KA. Law and policy approaches to keeping guns from loftier risk people. : Culhane J, Reconsidering Constabulary and Policy Debates: A Public Health Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Printing; 2011:153–186 [Google Scholar]
6. Wintemute GJ. The future of firearm violence prevention: building on success. JAMA. 1999;282(five):475–478 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Hemenway D. Individual Guns, Public Wellness . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2004 [Google Scholar]
8. National Research Council Commission to Improve Enquiry Information and Data on Firearms Firearms and Violence: A Disquisitional Review. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005 [Google Scholar]
x. Barron ex rel Tiernan v Mayor of Baltimore, 8 L Ed 672 (1833)
12. Nowak JE, Rotunda RD. Constitutional Constabulary. eighth ed. St. Paul, MN: W Publishing; 2009 [Google Scholar]
13. Us five Cruikshank, 92 The states 542 (1876)
14. Presser v Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886)
15. Fresno Burglarize and Pistol Guild Inc. v Van de Kamp, 746 F Supp 1415 (ED CA 1990)
16. Quilici five Village of Morton Grove, 695 F2d 261 (7th Cir 1982)
17. The states v Miller, 307 United states 174 (1939)
18. United States v Miller, 307 US 174, 178 (1939)
19. Lewis v United States, 445 US 55, 65 (1980)
xx. United States v Oakes, 564 F2d 384 (10th Cir 1977)
21. Hickman v Block, 81 F3d 98 (9th Cir 1996)
22. United States v Emerson, 46 F Supp 2d 598 (ND TX 1999), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 270 F3d 203 (5th Cir 2001)
23. 18 USC §922(thou)(8) (2010)
24. United States v Emerson, 46 F Supp 2d 598, 611 (ND TX. 1999)
25. The states five Emerson, 270 F3d 203, 261 (5th Cir 2001)
26. Artificial CT. The history and politics of 2d Amendment scholarship: a primer. Chic Kent Law Rev. 2000;76(1):3–25 [Google Scholar]
27. Dorf MC. What does the 2d Amendment mean today? Chichi Kent Constabulary Rev. 2000;76(1):291–347 [Google Scholar]
28. Spitzer RJ. Lost and constitute: researching the Second Subpoena. Chic Kent Law Rev. 2000;76(1):349–401 [Google Scholar]
29. Levinson S. The embarrassing Second Amendment. Yale Police force J. 1989;99(three):637–659 [Google Scholar]
xxx. Kates DB. Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the 2d Amendment. Mich Law Rev. 1983;82(2):204–273 [Google Scholar]
31. DC Lawmaking §7–2502.02 (2007)
32. Parker v District of Columbia, 311 F Supp 2d 103 (DC 2004)
33. Parker 5 Commune of Columbia, 478 F3d 370 (DC Cir 2007)
35. Commune of Columbia v Heller, 128 SCt 2783, 2815–2816 (2008)
36. District of Columbia v Heller, 128 SCt 2783, 2818 (2008)
37. District of Columbia 5 Heller, 128 SCt 2783, 2816 (2008)
38. District of Columbia v Heller, 128 SCt 2783, 2816–2817 (2008)
39. District of Columbia v Heller, 128 SCt 2783, 2817 (2008)
40. District of Columbia 5 Heller, 128 SCt 2783, 2817–2820 (2008)
41. Schenck v The states, 249 Us 47 (1919)
42. District of Columbia v Heller, 128 SCt 2783, 2852 (2008) (Breyer J, dissenting)
43. United states v Brunson, 2008 US App LEXIS 19456 (fourth Cir 2008)
44. Maloney v Cuomo, 554 F3d 56 (second Cir 2009)
45. National Burglarize Association of America Inc. v Chicago, 567 F3d 856 (seventh Cir 2009)
46. McDonald 5 Metropolis of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020, 3036 (2010)
47. McDonald five Metropolis of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020, 3041 (2010)
48. McDonald v City of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020, 3045 (2010)
49. McDonald v Urban center of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020, 3046–3047 (2010)
50. McDonald v City of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020, 3128 (2010). (Breyer J, dissenting)
51. United states v Skoien, 587 F3d 803 (7th Cir 2010)
52. United States five Skoien, 2010 US App LEXIS (7th Cir. 2010)
53. Reference Manual on Scientific Bear witness Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center; 1994 [Google Scholar]
54. Christoffel T, Teret SP. Epidemiology and the law: courts and confidence intervals. Am J Public Health. 1991;81(12):1661–1666 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Teret SP, Wintemute GJ. Policies to prevent firearm injuries. Health Aff. 1993;12(4):96–108 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. DC Lawmaking §7-2501.01 et seq (2010)
59. Zimring FE. Firearms, violence and public policy. Sci Am. Nov 1991:48–54 [Google Scholar]
60. Vernick JS, Teret SP. A public wellness approach to regulating firearms as consumer products. Univ PA Police Rev. 2000;148(4):1193–1211 [Google Scholar]
61. 18 USC §922 (q)(2) (2010)
62. Webster DW, Vernick JS, Zeoli AM, Manganello J. Clan between youth-focused firearm laws and youth suicides. JAMA. 2004;292(v):594–601 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Vernick JS, Teret SP. Firearms and health: the correct to be armed with accurate data about the Second Subpoena. Am J Public Health. 1993;83(12):1773–1777 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from American Journal of Public Wellness are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Clan
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222390/
0 Response to "Second Amendment After Heller and Mcdonald Law Review"
Post a Comment