全国步枪协会诉芝加哥市:第二修正案约束弗兰克·伊斯特布鲁克吗?

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
R. Epstein
{"title":"全国步枪协会诉芝加哥市:第二修正案约束弗兰克·伊斯特布鲁克吗?","authors":"R. Epstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1505608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In NRA v. City of Chicago, Judge Easterbrook held that the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, did not bind state governments. This article examines the reasoning that he uses to reach that result, which it contrasts with the style of argumentation that led to the opposite conclusion in Judge O’Scannlain’s decision in Norkdye v. King. Easterbrook’s approach emphasized the imperative need for lower court deference to the Supreme Court’s explicit Reconstruction Era holdings that the Second Amendment does not bind the states, even after the Supreme Court’s game-changing decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and thus gave only scant attention to the various historical authorities that O’Scannlain referred to in Nordyke. On balance it appears that Easterbrook is against incorporation on a variety of historical and federalism grounds, none of which are likely to prevail when the Supreme Court addresses the issue of incorporation when it hears the case later in the 2009 October Term.","PeriodicalId":51436,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Law Review","volume":"58 1","pages":"997"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"39","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NRA v. City of Chicago: Does the Second Amendment Bind Frank Easterbrook?\",\"authors\":\"R. Epstein\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1505608\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In NRA v. City of Chicago, Judge Easterbrook held that the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, did not bind state governments. This article examines the reasoning that he uses to reach that result, which it contrasts with the style of argumentation that led to the opposite conclusion in Judge O’Scannlain’s decision in Norkdye v. King. Easterbrook’s approach emphasized the imperative need for lower court deference to the Supreme Court’s explicit Reconstruction Era holdings that the Second Amendment does not bind the states, even after the Supreme Court’s game-changing decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and thus gave only scant attention to the various historical authorities that O’Scannlain referred to in Nordyke. On balance it appears that Easterbrook is against incorporation on a variety of historical and federalism grounds, none of which are likely to prevail when the Supreme Court addresses the issue of incorporation when it hears the case later in the 2009 October Term.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Chicago Law Review\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"997\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"39\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Chicago Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1505608\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Chicago Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1505608","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

摘要

在全国步枪协会诉芝加哥市案中,伊斯特布鲁克法官认为,保护持有和携带武器权利的第二修正案对州政府没有约束力。本文考察了他得出这一结论所用的推理方法,并与奥斯坎莱恩法官在诺克戴伊诉金案中得出相反结论的论证方式形成对比。伊斯特布鲁克的方法强调了下级法院必须遵从最高法院在重建时期的明确立场,即第二修正案不约束各州,即使是在最高法院在哥伦比亚特区诉海勒案中做出改变游戏规则的裁决之后,因此对奥斯坎莱恩在诺戴克案中提到的各种历史权威的关注很少。总的来说,伊斯特布鲁克似乎是基于各种历史和联邦主义的理由而反对合并,当最高法院在2009年10月开庭审理此案时处理合并问题时,这些理由都不太可能占上风。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
NRA v. City of Chicago: Does the Second Amendment Bind Frank Easterbrook?
In NRA v. City of Chicago, Judge Easterbrook held that the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, did not bind state governments. This article examines the reasoning that he uses to reach that result, which it contrasts with the style of argumentation that led to the opposite conclusion in Judge O’Scannlain’s decision in Norkdye v. King. Easterbrook’s approach emphasized the imperative need for lower court deference to the Supreme Court’s explicit Reconstruction Era holdings that the Second Amendment does not bind the states, even after the Supreme Court’s game-changing decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and thus gave only scant attention to the various historical authorities that O’Scannlain referred to in Nordyke. On balance it appears that Easterbrook is against incorporation on a variety of historical and federalism grounds, none of which are likely to prevail when the Supreme Court addresses the issue of incorporation when it hears the case later in the 2009 October Term.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: The University of Chicago Law Review is a quarterly journal of legal scholarship. Often cited in Supreme Court and other court opinions, as well as in other scholarly works, it is among the most influential journals in the field. Students have full responsibility for editing and publishing the Law Review; they also contribute original scholarship of their own. The Law Review"s editorial board selects all pieces for publication and, with the assistance of staff members, performs substantive and technical edits on each of these pieces prior to publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信