Citation

Blocher J. Stanford Law Rev. 2012; 64(1): 1-54.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, School of Law, Stanford University)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Sometimes a constitutional right to do a particular thing is accompanied by a right not to do that thing. The First Amendment, for example, guarantees both the right to speak and the right not to speak This Article asks whether the Second Amendment should likewise be read to encompass both the right to keep or bear arms for self-defense and the inverse right to protect oneself by avoiding arms, and what practical implications, if any, the latter right would have. The Article concludes albeit with some important qualifications that a right not to keep or bear arms is implied by what the Supreme Court has called the "core" and "central component" of the Second Amendment: self-defense, especially in the home. Recognizing such a right might call into question the constitutionality of the growing number of "anti-gun control" laws that make it difficult or illegal for private individuals to avoid having guns in their actual or constructive possession.

Language: en