Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute
Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of LawNot a member yet
8606 research outputs found
Sort by
Deception, Professional Speech, and CPCs: On \u3cem\u3eBecerra\u3c/em\u3e, Abortion, and the First Amendment
Get PDFIn National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, the United States Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post certain signs.1 The Court implied that the case involved a relatively straightforward example of governmental overreaching, with the government allegedly attempting to commandeer private entities and force them to convey the government’s message.2 Yet, the Court omitted important background information when discussing the state’s implicated interests,3 and the Court’s analyses and rationales may have important First Amendment implications. While the Court may have reached the right result, its analyses bode poorly for a reasoned and consistent approach with respect to abortion regulations on the one hand or a variety of First Amendment issues on the other.
Part II of this Article offers background information about crisis pregnancy centers as well as some discussion of the existing jurisprudence regarding the constitutionality of limitations on commercial and professional speech. Part III discusses Becerra, noting how the decision omitted important information that should have been part of the analysis—while the result would have been the same, the Court would not have been implying that it was making important changes in First Amendment jurisprudence. Part IV discusses some of the possible implications of Becerra, including some of the suits that likely will be filed in light of the opinion. The Article concludes that the opinion has a number of surprising implications and time will tell whether these reflect poor craftsmanship or instead a shift in a few different areas of constitutional law
Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law. By Anne Peters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016. pp. xxxv, 602. Index
Get PDF
Condemn(the)nation: Holding the United States Accountable Through Inverse Condemnation Claims for its Role in Bringing About- and Then Failing to Mitigate and Adapt to Certain Effects of- Climate Change
Get PDFTemptation\u27s Page Flies Out the Door: Navigating Complex Systems of Disability and the Law from a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Perspective
Get PDF
Drying Up the Slippery Slope: A New Approach to the Second Amendment
Get PDFFew issues are as divisive as guns in American society. In 2017, gun deaths in the United States reached their highest level in nearly forty years. The status quo is untenable as many gun rights groups feel that gun regulations are just a first step in a slippery slope of undermining the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms for self-defense. Conversely, many gun violence prevention activists insist that reasonable regulations concerning public safety can co-exist with the right to bear arms. This quagmire will never abate because on many levels both sides are right. For over 200 years, the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting a right to bear arms for the state militias, called a “collective” right, and not an individual right to bear arms. In 2008, however, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling held for the first time that, based on the Founding Fathers’ intent—an approach called originalism—the Second Amendment protects the individual right to self-defense in one’s home. This was the right decision, but for the wrong reasons. The Second Amendment’s language is ambiguous at best, and at worst, favors the militia interpretation that had prevailed for over 200 years. Moreover, the Founding Fathers’ intent is as irrelevant as it is indeterminable. An interpretation of the Constitution as a living document that evolves with the values of this country leads to one unmistakable conclusion: individuals should be allowed to use guns for self-defense while the government should be allowed to enact reasonable public safety regulations.
Since the founding of this country, the use of firearms for self-defense has played an integral part in American culture. Yet, so have reasonable gun regulations. This Article will explore three time periods in America’s history where either the states, or the federal government enacted reasonable gun regulations to address serious problems plaguing the nation because of guns: violence in the Wild West, gangsters in the 1920’s, and urban violence in the 1960’s. These regulations were enacted in time periods where the conversation was not so divisive and toxic.
To move forward, we need to look backwards. A study of American history reveals a fundamental truth: the use of firearms for self-defense both inside and outside the home can be coupled with reasonable gun regulations to address public safety. Therefore, the Second Amendment should be amended to explicitly state, “Every person has the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations for public safety.” In this way, gun rights groups will not have to feel that every gun regulation is on a slippery slope to banishment of guns while gun violence prevention advocates can feel confident that the conversation will always involve “reasonable” regulations that can evolve with the times. After all, gun rights and reasonable regulation is what this country has been doing for over 200 years, until the present impasse. We often study history so we don’t repeat it, but sometimes we need to study history to remind ourselves that the past is worth repeating
