Individual rights

Nowhere is this concern with individual rights more crucial than in questions concerning the justice of energy policy. Distributive justice demands that the benefits and burdens of energy policy be distributed in ways that respect the equal dignity and worth of every individual. A prims facie violation of justice occurs when social benefits and burdens are distributed unequally. Particularly troubling inequalities occur when the benefits of policy go to the powerful and wealthy, while the burdens are distributed primarily among the poor and less powerful. 

Public Individual rights and interests Recipients of communication with limited knowledge of risk assessment and focus on perceived risk perceptions of risk based on personal experiences... 

The federal appeals court overruled the district court with regard to the action taken against the defendant, but its decision left intact the lower court s conclusions about the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, however, other federal appeals circuits (notably the Ninth) have continued to deny the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

To add to the legal turmoil, in May 2001 U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department would essentially adopt the individual rights approach to the Second Amendment, while at the same time saying that it would not challenge any existing federal gun laws. 

This decision continues in the tradition of the keeping of arms being an individual right, but one exercised in the context of promoting a collective defense (the well-trained militia). The state s police power can prohibit weapons that are not suitable or customary for this purpose. The keeping of military weapons cannot be banned, but the manner of bearing them can be regulated. 

The Ninth Amendment argument was quickly dismissed as lacking any convincing precedents. Appellants may believe the Ninth Amendment should be read to recognize an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess firearms the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory. ... 

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed by a 2-1 majority that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right. However, the judges found that the right was not absolute, and that restricting it in cases of domestic abuse was reasonable. 

A similar California case (Kasler v. Lockyer, Cal. 4th [2000]) also included a claim that the state s assault weapons law violated the Second Amendment. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in upholding the law also ruled that because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision. ... 

Currently only the Fifth Circuit (see U.S. v. Emerson) has upheld an individual right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court should eventually resolve the conflict between the circuits in favor of this interpretation, a stricter test would presumably be applied to state gun laws. Of course, some regulations might still pass such scrutiny. 

In U.S. V. Miller the Supreme Court rejects an appeal by stating that it had been given no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for use in a militia, and because it is not, carrying it would not be protected by the Second Amendment. Because the decision also implied an individual right to bear military-type arms, it would be cited by both supporters and opponents of gun control. 

May 17 In a letter to NRA chief lobbyist James Jay Baker, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announces a radical shift in Justice Department policy in which it will accept the individual rights theory of the Second Amendment. However, subsequent statements imply that the Justice Department will not seek to overturn any existing federal firearms laws on Second Amendment grounds. 

Sanford Levinson, McCormick Professor at the University of Texas. Although he remains generally politically liberal, Levinson s studies of the Second Amendment led him to the conclusion that it did protect an individual right to keep and bear arms and that it should be taken seriously by constitutional scholars. His 1989 paper The Embarrassing Second Amendment helped touch off a renewed debate about the amendment s meaning and the suggestion that it should be, like the First and Fourth Amendments, incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states. 

Carmer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. West-port, Conn. Praeger Publishers, 1994. Explores the conflict between the original intent of the Second Amendment, well established by scholarship as conferring an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court and most other courts that have pre-... 

Gottlieb, Alan M. Gun Rights Affirmed The Emerson Case. Bellevue, Wash. Merril Press, 2001. Recounts the arguments and ruling in a federal district court that for the first time affirmed that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms. (Note that an appeals court subsequently found against the defendant but left the Second Amendment interpretation intact.)... 

Ehrman, Keith A., and Dennis A. Henigan. The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century Have You Seen Your Militia Lately University of Dayton Law Review, vol. 15, 1989, pp. 5-58. Argues that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms only to the extent it is necessary for the maintenance of an effective militia. Because the federally directed National Guard has replaced the old state militias, it is no longer necessary for private individuals to have firearms, and there is no obstacle to prohibiting them. 

Glaberson, William. Court Says Individuals Have a Right to Firearms. New York Times, October 17, 2001, p. 14. Reports on the finding of a Fifth Circuit federal appeals court that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to have firearms. In this particular case (U.S. v. Timothy Emerson), the Court went on to say that the denying of firearms to persons under a domestic restraining order was a reasonable exercise of regulation. 

Sprigman, Chris. This Is Not a Well-Regulated Militia. Open Forum, Winter 1994, n.p. Reviews Supreme Court cases and concludes that the Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting state militias, not as an individual right to bear arms. Sprigman cites United States V. Miller (1939) and argues that the militia concept is probably not relevant to modern America. 

URL http //www.saf.org E-mail www saf.org Phone (800) 426-4302 James Madison Building 12500 NE Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Educational and advocacy organization focusing on the Second Amendment, considered as an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

Utah The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. (Article I, Section 6)... 

---