Recent developments in the interpretation of the Second Amendment left unanswered questions regarding the scope of the constitutional guarantee of armed self-defense. Most importantly, neither District of Columbia v. Heller nor McDonald v. City of Chicago set a firm standard for determining the constitutionality of gun-control laws. This determination is of critical importance because—perhaps more directly than any other fundamental right—the Second Amendment implicates philosophical questions of societal versus individual safety. Strong constitutional protections for the Second Amendment tend to prioritize the right of responsible citizens to rely on themselves, rather than the government, for their own protection and tend to force the government to address the problem of gun violence through punishment rather than prevention. Deference to the power of the State to regulate firearms allows government more latitude to prevent violence, which is vastly superior to punishment, but tends to leave the individual dependent on the questionable ability (or even responsibility) of government to protect them. Regulation often has the unfortunate tendency to disproportionately impact those unlikely to commit a crime of violence with a firearm. This Note proposes that gun regulations that create a substantial likelihood that individuals will be unable to defend themselves when faced with serious, imminent danger should be subjected to strict scrutiny. While gun regulations that tend to improve societal safety without significantly obstructing an individual’s ability to defend him or herself should be given more judicial latitude in the form of intermediate scrutiny.
News & Events
-
Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times
The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]
-
Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed
The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.
-
Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15
The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces 2013 Symposium Topic
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that its 2013 symposium will address the legal and political issues facing organized labor in the United States. The symposium will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 25, 2013.
Recent Issues
- Volume 97 – No. 5
- Volume 97 – No. 4
- Volume 97 – No. 3
- Volume 97 – No. 2
- Volume 97 – No. 1
- Volume 96 – No. 6
- Volume 96 – No. 5
- Volume 96 – No. 4
- Volume 96 – No. 3
- Volume 96 – No. 2
- Volume 96 – No. 1
- Volume 95 – No. 6
- Volume 95 – No. 5
- Volume 95 – No. 4
- Volume 95 – No. 3
- Volume 95 – No. 2
- Volume 95 – No. 1
- Volume 94 – No. 6
- Volume 94 – No. 5
- Volume 94 – No. 4
- Volume 94 – No. 3
- Volume 94 – No. 2
- Volume 94 – No. 1
- Volume 93 – No. 6
- Volume 93 – No. 5
- Volume 93 – No. 4
- Volume 93 – No. 3
- Volume 93 – No. 2
- Volume 93 – No. 1
- Volume 92 – No. 6
- Volume 92 – No. 5
- Volume 92 – No. 4
- Volume 92 – No. 3
- Volume 92 – No. 2
- Volume 92 – No. 1
- Volume 91 – No. 6
- Volume 91 – No. 5
- Volume 91 – No. 4
- Volume 91 – No. 3
- Volume 91 – No. 2
- Volume 91 – No. 1
- Volume 90 – No. 6
- Volume 90 – No. 5
- Volume 90 – No. 4
- Volume 90 – No. 3
- Volume 90 – No. 2
- Volume 90 – No. 1