GOING GUNLESS

By
I have a new article draft posted on SSRN: GOING GUNLESS 
photo by Maria Lysenko


 Stevenson, Drury D., Going Gunless (July 13, 2019). 
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3419585

Abstract

Firearm policy in the United States is subject to longstanding political gridlock; victories and losses for each side of the issue run neck-and-neck. This Article inverts the problem and proposes a system for voluntary registration and certification of non-owners, those who want to waive or renounce their Second Amendment rights as a matter of personal conviction. The proposed system is analogous to both the registration of conscientious objectors during wartime conscriptions, and the newer suicide prevention laws whereby individuals can add their names to a do-not-sell list for firearm dealers – though the proposal made here is broader and more permanent. Voluntary registration, with official certification, would serve three important purposes. First, this would help create social identification markers for the gunless-by-choice movement, something that historically has been missing; formal signals and labels of identification with a movement are necessary for a movement’s success, especially with prohibition or abstinence movements. Second, registration and certification as gunless would be a personal moral commitment marker; all societies provide ways for solemnizing one’s vows and solidifying one’s resolve on serious, lifelong moral decisions. Third, certification allows for market-signaling effects, useful information that can trigger a beneficial response from the private sector; market responses, in turn, provide useful information about otherwise hotly-debated beliefs, such as whether guns in fact enhance or reduce safety for individuals and public places. This Article develops each of these points and describes the regulatory and statutory alternatives for a federal or state system of registration and certification.

Popular posts from this blog

Careful With Those Lawyer Jokes....

By
Image
I kind of enjoy lawyer jokes, but the media tried to make it sound like this was a case of egregious overlawyering. Notice at the end of the article that these guys complain they've been standing outside Long Island courthouses mocking lawyers " for years " without being arrested: "The pair said that for years they have stood outside courthouses on Long Island and mocked lawyers." Duh. You didn't expect one of those evil, assertive lawyers to get sick of it and complain at some point? As a practitioner, I didn't enjoy standing in line outside the courthouse in the freezing New England weather any more than the rest of the people - actually probably less, because most people appearing on charges seemed to bring friends and family with them to keep them company. These protestors really must not have enough to do! Get a job or something! If somebody finally decided he'd had enough, how was he supposed to know these guys were there that day fo...
Read more

Special-Interest Law Schools

By
I mentioned this article earlier in passing. The link in the title leads to the relatively even-handed treatment of Jerry Falwell's new Christian law school in Legal Affairs. (The first class of students there must have completed their first set of final exams by now). I would not be interested in teaching there myself, and worry about their bar passage rate, etc., but most of the criticisms in the media have been overblown. I like special interest law schools. They form a nice complement to the rest of our institutions, the 200 or so law schools that collectively graduate nearly 40,000 new but mostly generic practitioners every year. It enriches our legal system to have a subset of lawyers whose skills are devoted to and oriented around a particular social cause, instead of whatever case walks in the door and pays the bills. (My stint as a legal aid lawyer left me biased, though). It enriches social movements and NGO's to have lawyers who do more than take occasional pro bo...
Read more

Judge Issues Landmark Church Abuse Ruling

By
A judge in Boston has held that a church (in this case, a Jehovah's Witnesses group) has a fiduciary duty to protect its members from being molested by the clergy. This appears to be a new step in the development of church liability law; whereas many of the cases against the Roman Catholic Church in recent years centered on allegations that the hierarchy knowingly allowed the abuse to continue, this rule would create almost strict liability for churches. From the article: "A Superior Court judge has ruled that a Jehovah's Witness church in Boston can be sued for breaking its trust and legal duty to a girl who claims she was sexually abused by one of the church's ministerial servants." This ruling appears to be the first time a court (at least in that state) has ruled that church officials have a "fiduciary duty" to their members. "Fiduciary duty" is a legal term of art: in practice, it means that certain people in positions of trust have a le...
Read more