The Volokh Conspiracy - Heller and Self-Defense:

In his post below, David Kopel writes:

District of Columbia v. Heller clearly establishes self-defense (not just gun ownership for self-defense) as a constitutional right. In light of Heller, what are some cases from state courts or lower federal courts which might have to be reversed or modified? I am thinking particularly of cases which describe self-defense as a government-granted privilege, for which fewer due process and other protections are available than for a "right." I am not looking for gun regulation cases, but rather for cases about self-defense in general.

David, could you explain why you think Heller "clearly establishes self-defense (not just gun ownership for self-defense) as a constitutional right"? Off the top of my head, I tend to disagree with this claim about the scope of Heller. The fact that the Constitution protects a constitutional right to do X when it serves interest Y does not mean that there is a constitutional right to serve interest Y unrelated to X. I'm curious, what passage in Heller do you have in mind that suggests differently?

All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:

	[Orin Kerr, July 15, 2008 at 2:46pm] Trackbacks Heller and Self-Defense: In his post below, David Kopel writes: District of Columbia v. Heller clearly establishes self-defense (not just gun ownership for self-defense) as a constitutional right. In light of Heller, what are some cases from state courts or lower federal courts which might have to be reversed or modified? I am thinking particularly of cases which describe self-defense as a government-granted privilege, for which fewer due process and other protections are available than for a "right." I am not looking for gun regulation cases, but rather for cases about self-defense in general. David, could you explain why you think Heller "clearly establishes self-defense (not just gun ownership for self-defense) as a constitutional right"? Off the top of my head, I tend to disagree with this claim about the scope of Heller. The fact that the Constitution protects a constitutional right to do X when it serves interest Y does not mean that there is a constitutional right to serve interest Y unrelated to X. I'm curious, what passage in Heller do you have in mind that suggests differently? All Related Posts (on one page) \| Some Related Posts: Can Lethal Self-Defense, Even Against Threats of Death, Serious Bodily Injury, Rape, and Kidnapping, Be Made a Crime? The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller's Lesson to the World Three Difficulties With Using State Constitutional Rights to Infer Federal Constitutional Rights:... State Constitutional Rights of Self-Defense and Defense of Property: A Constitutional Right to Self-Defense? Heller and Self-Defense: