Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T06:27:19.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

True Threats, Self-Defense, and the Second Amendment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2021

Joseph Blocher  and
Bardia Vaseghi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Does the Second Amendment protect those who threaten others by negligently or recklessly wielding firearms? What line separates constitutionally legitimate gun displays from threatening activities that can be legally proscribed? This article finds guidance in the First Amendment doctrine of true threats, which permits punishment of “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individual.” The Second Amendment, like the First, should not be read to protect those who threaten unlawful violence. And to the degree that the constitution requires a culpable mental state (mens rea) in such circumstances, the appropriate standard should be recklessness.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue S4: Gun Violence in America: An Interdisciplinary Examination , Winter 2020 , pp. 112 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armus, T. and Bellware, K., “St. Louis Couple Point Guns at Crowd of Protesters Calling for Mayor to Resign,” Washington Post, June 29, 2020, available at <https://www.washington-post.com/nation/2020/06/29/st-louis-protest-gun-mayor/> (last visited September 9, 2020).+(last+visited+September+9,+2020).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Brownlee, C., “What Counts as Brandishing? When Is it Illegal?” The Trace, July 2, 2020, available at <https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/armed-st-louis-missouri-couple-threat-brandishing-self-defense/> (last visited September 9, 2020).+(last+visited+September+9,+2020).>Google Scholar
Martin, J., “Missouri Gov: St. Louis Couple ‘Had Every Right’ to Wave Guns at Protestors,” Newsweek, July 14, 2020, available at <https://www.newsweek.com/missouri-gov-st-louis-couple-had-every-right-wave-guns-protesters-1517821> (last visited September 9, 2020).+(last+visited+September+9,+2020).>Google Scholar
Armus, T. and Bellware, K., “‘She's Got the Gun on Me’: White Woman Charged with Assault After Pulling Pistol on Black Mother, Daughter,” Washington Post, July 2, 2020, available at <https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/02/michigan-woman-gun-video/> (last visited September 9, 2020). (last visited September 9, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Armus,+T.+and+Bellware,+K.,+“‘She's+Got+the+Gun+on+Me’:+White+Woman+Charged+with+Assault+After+Pulling+Pistol+on+Black+Mother,+Daughter,”+Washington+Post,+July+2,+2020,+available+at++(last+visited+September+9,+2020).>Google Scholar
Charles, J.B., “Ahmaud Arbery Shooting Ignites Fight to Repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” The Trace, May 15, 2020, available at <https://www.thetrace.org/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-ignites-fight-to-repeal-stand-your-ground-laws/> (last visited September 9, 2020).+(last+visited+September+9,+2020).>Google Scholar
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630 (2008); id. at 599; see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 744 (2010).Google Scholar
See infra notes and accompanying text.Google Scholar
See generally Ruben, E., “An Unstable Core: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment,” California Law Review 108, no. 1 (2020): 63-106.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir. 2012); see also Blocher, J. and Morgan, L., “Doctrinal Dynamism, Borrowing, and the Relationship between Rules and Rights,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 28 (2019): 319-346; Charles, J.D., “Constructing a Constitutional Right: Borrowing and Second Amendment Design Choices,” North Carolina Law Review 99 (2020); Magarian, G.P., “Political and Non-Political Speech and Guns,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 28 (2019): 429-457.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 706–07 (7th Cir. 2011); Blocher, J., “The Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms,” Stanford Law Review 64, no. 1 (2012): 1-54; Miller, D.A.H., “Guns as Smut: Defending the Home-Bound Second Amendment,” Columbia Law Review 110, no. 1 (2009): 1278-1356.Google Scholar
See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582, 595, 635 (2008).Google Scholar
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003).Google Scholar
See generally Fletcher, G.P., A Crime of Self Defense: Bernard Goetz and the Law on Trial (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); see also Nourse, V.F., “Self-Defense and Subjectivity,” University of Chicago Law Review Unbound 68, no. 4 (2001): 1235-1308.Google Scholar
See infra notes and sources cited therein.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
Compare Miller, supra note 15, with Volokh, E., “The First and Second Amendments,” Columbia Law Review Sidebar 109 (2009): 97-104.Google Scholar
See Ruben, supra note 9, at 70 n.38 and sources cited therein.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659, 663 (1st Cir. 2018).Google Scholar
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003).Google Scholar
394 U.S. 705 (1969).Google Scholar
See id., at 706.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 707.Google Scholar
See id. at 708; see also Rothman, J.E., “Freedom of Speech and True Threats,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 25, no. 1 (2001): 283-367.Google Scholar
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 348 (2003).Google Scholar
Id., at 349.Google Scholar
See id., at 354.Google Scholar
See id., at 362.Google Scholar
See id., at 348.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Id., at 359-360.Google Scholar
Id., at 360 (citing R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)); see also Blocher, J. and Siegel, R., “Why Regulate Guns?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48, no. 4, Suppl. (2020): 11-16; Ruben, E.M., “Justifying Perceptions in First and Second Amendment Doctrine,” Law and Contemporary Problems 80, no. 2 (2017): 149-177, at 149.Google Scholar
See Crane, P.T., Note, “‘True Threats’ and the Issue of Intent,” Virginia Law Review 92, no. 6 (2006): 1225-1277, at 1243; Morgan, L., Note, “Leave Your Guns at Home: The Constitutionality of a Prohibition on Carrying Firearms at Political Demonstrations,” Duke Law Journal 68 (2018): 175-216, at 185-86.Google Scholar
135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015).Google Scholar
18 U.S.C. § 875 (1934).Google Scholar
Id., at 2009, 2012.Google Scholar
Id., at 2010.Google Scholar
United States v. Elonis, 841 F.3d 589, 599 (3d Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003).Google Scholar
See United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020 (2d Circ. 1976).Google Scholar
Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(c).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605-606 (1994).Google Scholar
See United States v. Elonis, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 2015 (2015).Google Scholar
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008).Google Scholar
4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *149; see also State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 420 (1843).Google Scholar
Statute of Northampton, 1328, 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (Eng.).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Charles, P.J., “Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home: History Versus Ahistorical Standards of Review,” Cleveland State Law Review 60, no. 1 (2012): 373-482, 373, 341; Miller, supra note 4, at 1317-18.Google Scholar
Volokh, E., “The First and Second Amendments,” Columbia Law Review Sidebar 109 (2009): 97-110, 101.Google Scholar
See Brief for CRPA Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees at 18-19, Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (2017) (No. 15-7057).Google Scholar
See Robinson, P.H. and Dubber, M.D., “The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview,” New Criminal Law Review 10, no. 3 (2007): 319-341, 334-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For a partial but useful history, see United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 825 F.Supp. 485 (E.D.N.Y.1993).Google Scholar
See Steer, J., “Protesters Chant ‘Freedom Over Safety’ Outside Ohio Statehouse,” Fox 8, April 20, 2020, available at <https://fox8.com/news/coronavirus/protesters-chant-freedom-over-safety-outside-ohio-statehouse> (last visited September 9, 2020).+(last+visited+September+9,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Spitzer, R.J., “Why Are People Bringing Guns to Anti-quarantine Protests? To Be Intimidating,” Washington Post, April 27, 2020, available at <https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/27/why-are-people-bringing-guns-anti-quarantine-protests-be-intimidating/> (last visited September 9, 2020).+(last+visited+September+9,+2020).>Google Scholar
Vigdor, N., “Armed Man Who Caused Panic at Missouri Walmart Said It Was 2nd Amendment Test, Authorities Say,” New York Times, August 8, 2019.Google Scholar
See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.120.Google Scholar
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630 (2008).Google Scholar
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).Google Scholar
Model Penal Code § 211.1Google Scholar
See Kleck, G. and Gertz, M.G., “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86, no. 1 (1995): 150-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hemenway, D., “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates,” Journal Criminal Law and Criminology 87, no. 4 (1997): 1430-1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemenway, D., Azrael, D., and Miller, M., “Gun Use in the United States: Results from Two National Surveys,” Injury Prevention 6, no. 4 (2000): 263-265; see also Duncan, O.D., “As Compared to What? Offensive and Defensive Gun Use Surveys, 1973–1994,” National Institute of Justice Working Paper 185056 (2000): 1-21; Duncan, O.D., “Gun Use Surveys: In Numbers We Trust?” Criminologist 25, no. 1 (2000): 1-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See supra note 64.Google Scholar