Video Highlights
- Law professors from the University of Houston and the University of Oklahoma are publishing an article in a law review journal suggesting that government officials should violate individuals' constitutional rights and rely on qualified immunity to avoid liability.
- They argue that after the Supreme Court's ruling in Bruin, states can disarm individuals they deem dangerous by confiscating their firearms, even if it conflicts with the federal court's understanding of the Second Amendment.
- This raises concerns about the education of future lawyers and the cultural war against gun rights that has spilled into academia.
Video Summary
Law professors from the University of Houston and the University of Oklahoma are facing criticism for publishing an article in a law review journal that advocates for the violation of individuals' Second Amendment rights. In the article titled 'Qualified Immunity as Gun Control', the professors argue that government officials should have the power to disarm individuals they deem dangerous, even if it conflicts with the federal court's understanding of the Second Amendment.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability if they violate a person's constitutional rights, as long as they were acting in good faith or there was no clear precedent that would have put them on notice. The professors suggest that in the post-Bruin era, where the Supreme Court's ruling in Bruin has made it more difficult for states to pass gun control laws, government officials can rely on qualified immunity to confiscate firearms from individuals they deem dangerous.
The authors argue that because each act of disarmament will be unique, there will be few authoritative legal decisions examining similar facts, making it unlikely for officers to face consequences for violating individuals' rights. This, they claim, gives states a 'surprisingly free hand' to determine who should and should not be armed, even if it contravenes the Supreme Court's dictates.
The publication of this article has raised concerns about the education of future lawyers and the influence of gun control advocates in academia. It is not an isolated incident, as groups like Moms Demand Action and Giffords have been actively discouraging law students from working for anyone who represents gun rights. This cultural war against gun rights has now spilled into higher academia, further fueling the debate on civilian disarmament.
Critics argue that teaching law students to violate constitutional rights and rely on qualified immunity sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the principles of justice and the rule of law. They believe that the education of future lawyers should focus on upholding and defending constitutional rights rather than finding ways to bypass them.
This article serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle over gun rights in the United States and the various tactics being employed by gun control advocates. It highlights the need for individuals to be aware of the law and how it applies to their rights as responsible gun owners. As the debate continues, it is crucial for citizens to stay informed and engaged in the protection of their constitutional rights.
