No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
In recent years, the prohibition of firearms magazines has become an important topic of law and policy debate. This Article details the history of magazines and of magazine prohibition.
Because ten rounds is an oft-proposed figure for magazine bans, Part I of the Article provides the story of such magazines from the earliest sixteenth century onward. Although some people think that multi-shot guns did not appear until Samuel Colt invented the revolver in the 1830s, multi-shot guns predate Col. Colt by over two centuries.
Especially because the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller considers whether arms are “in common use” and are “Typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” the Article also pays attention to whether and when particular guns and their magazines achieved mass market success in the United States. The first time a rifle did so was in 1866, and the first time a handgun did so was in 1935.
The detailed history of various firearms and their magazines stops in 1979 — a year which is somewhat ancient in terms of the current gun control debate. Back in 1979, revolvers still far outsold semi-automatic handguns. No-one was trying to ban so-called “assault weapons,” although such guns were already well-established in the market.
For the post-1979 period, Part I briefly explains technological improvements in recent decades have fostered the continuing popularity of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Part II of the article describes the history of magazine prohibition in the United States. Such prohibitions are of recent vintage, with an important exception: during Prohibition, Michigan, Rhode Island, Ohio, and the District of Columbia banned some firearms which held more than a certain number of rounds. The Michigan, Rhode Island, and Ohio laws were later repealed. The D.C. ban, however, remains in force today, with some revisions.
As a matter of constitutional doctrine, the right to keep and bear arms is coming of age. But although the doctrine has begun to mature in the decade since District of Columbia v. Heller , scholars, advocates, and judges disagree about (and sometimes simply do not know) how to characterize it. This Article is the first comprehensive empirical analysis of post- Heller Second Amendment doctrine. Beginning with a set of more than one thousand Second Amendment challenges, we have coded every available Second Amendment opinion—state and federal, trial and appellate—from Heller up until February 1, 2016. The dataset is deep as well as broad, including dozens of variables regarding the content of each challenge, not just whether it prevailed. Our findings help provide an objective basis for characterizing Second Amendment doctrine and framing new scholarly inquiries. This is a particularly important task now, as the Amendment becomes a part of “normal” constitutional law and increasingly susceptible to the standard tools of legal analysis.
This paper attempts to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the various facets of the Products Liability Restatement that relate to medical technologies, and it does so from a perspective rooted in the regulatory as opposed to the doctrinal challenges posed by these products. The special provisions applicable to prescription drugs and devices have provoked a great deal of scholarly commentary, and the few courts to consider the issue have uncritically relied upon the published critiques. I find little merit in most of these negative assessments, though I point out some flaws in section 6 of new Restatement that seemingly no one else has identified. Part II addresses production defects, focusing on the heated debate over what standards to use in deciding whether a prescription drug suffers from a defective design. Part III considers defects related to the information that accompanies prescription drugs, especially those advertised directly to consumers. Finally, Part IV touches on some of the peculiar issues raised by investigational products, generic drugs, prescription medical devices, and the duties of non-manufacturing sellers.
End the Popularity Contest: A Proposal for Second Amendment "Type of Weapon
- Cody J Jacobs
2018) (upholding the constitutionality of a California 237 law requiring magazine safety features and "microstamping" discharged bullets with identifying information)
- E G See
An Unstable Core: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment, 108 CALIF
- Eric Ruben
These exceptions will ultimately have to be justified under some standard of scrutiny . . . possibly under an undue-burden or an intermediatescrutiny test
- F W Carlton
If it is true . . . that long guns are useful for hunting but not for self-defense, then the Second Amendment protection of those guns should be correspondingly weaker
- Joseph Blocher
Uncommon Firearms as Obscenity, 81 TENN
- Pratt
- Obermeier
); see also Lars Noah, Does the U.S. Constitution Constrain State Products Liability Doctrine?
- Corey A Ciocchetti
Compare Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1260-64 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that, even if they qualified as in common use, the prohibition survived intermediate scrutiny), with id
- Eugene Volokh
- L St
arguing that the unanimous per curiam opinion in Caetano
- W Adam
- Jeremy W Cf
The court's most conservative members at various times have expressed frustration that their colleagues have routinely turned down requests to evaluate laws that impose tough restrictions for permits to carry guns outside the home and ban certain types of weapons
- Robert Barnes