Permissible Gun Regulations After Heller: Speculations About Method and Outcome
View/ Open
56-5-11.pdf (117.8Kb)
Access Status
Full text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time ("restricted access"). For more information on restricted deposits, see our FAQ.Author
Published Version
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-11.pdfMetadata
Show full item recordCitation
Mark Tushnet, Permissible Gun Regulations After Heller: Speculations About Method and Outcome, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1425 (2009).Abstract
This Essay speculates about the substance and timing of likely decisions by lower courts and the Supreme Court in dealing with issues left open by District of Columbia v. Heller. It suggests that lower courts will not address those issues by examining original understandings regarding permissible gun regulations, but will instead apply to such regulations something like an intermediate standard of review or rational basis with bite, and will rarely find unconstitutional an existing regulation of guns, short of what in practice amounts to a complete ban. It speculates as well that the Supreme Court will allow most Second Amendment issues to percolate in the lower courts, and that the Court that takes up another Second Amendment issue may well have a different composition, one less sympathetic than the present Court to gun rights. It concludes that Heller’s fate may be similar to the fate of the Rehnquist Court’s so-called Federalism Revolution—an important decision with relatively little enduring impact.Citable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10880596
Collections
- HLS Scholarly Articles [1910]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)