@article{ref1,
title="Guns as Smut: Defending the Home-Bound Second Amendment",
journal="Columbia law review",
year="2009",
author="Miller, Darrell A. H.",
volume="109",
number="6",
pages="1278-1356",
abstract="In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the   Second Amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to keep and   bear arms. But the Court left lower courts and legislatures adrift. on   the fundamental question of scope. Mile the Court stated in dicta that   some regulation may survive constitutional scrutiny, it left the precise   contours of the right, and even the method by which to determine those   contours, for &quot;future evaluation.&quot;   This Article offers a provocative proposal for tackling the issue of   Second Amendment scope, one tucked in many dresser drawers across the   nation: Treat the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for   self-defense the same as the right to own and view adult obscenity under   the First Amendment-a robust right in the home, subject to near-plenary   restriction by elected government everywhere else.   This Article's proposal to treat guns like smut is sure to stir   controversy. But it is grounded in solid methods of constitutional   analysis. The Court in Heller sent unmistakable signals that the First   and Second Amendments are cousins and may be subject to similar   limitations. As justice Scalia noted, the First Amendment excludes from   its protection certain categories of speech: &quot;obscenity, libel, and   disclosure of state secrets. &quot; The Second Amendment may be &quot;no   different, &quot; and almost certainly excludes from its protection certain   categories of &quot;bearing&quot; and certain categories of &quot;arms.&quot;   Moreover, the &quot;home-bound&quot; approach to the Second Amendment rationalizes   the disparate norms that animate the Court's privacy jurisprudence. It   situates the Second Amendment within tradition and doctrine that accord   constitutional weight to a spatial and conceptual distinction between   the home and the public sphere. Finally, this proposal has the benefit   of simplicity: The Court has already marked boundaries for an individual   right to adult obscenity in the home. Those boundaries are surprisingly   applicable to the individual right to bear arms, and far easier to   administer.   Mile this proposal will not resolve all issues of Second Amendment   scope, its prudential and practical merits deserve serious consideration   as part, of post-Heller discourse on the Second Amendment.<p />",
language="",
issn="0010-1958",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}