Chernin, BA; Deborah L.
Originally published as 20 J. Permission for WWW use at this site generously granted by the author. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S.
Introduction One evening, a gang brawl broke out in the street next to the northwest Denver home of a young woman named Sharon Deatherage.
A police car happened upon the scene, and sped away without taking any action, never to return. As a result of this experience, the young woman, who lived alone, decided that she would have to take measures to protect herself because she could not rely on the Denver City government for protection.
Because of an injury to her wrist, she was unable to use a handgun.
At the suggestion of a firearms instructor, she bought an M-1 carbine, which is a relatively small, low-powered semiautomatic rifle, and which has been commercially available for nearly half a century. Deatherage into a criminal by declaring her M-1 carbine and its attached round ammunition magazine an illegal "assault weapon.
As of AugustCongress had not enacted a comprehensive federal "assault weapon" prohibition. Employing the rational basis test, before analyzing the of right to bear arms provisions, is useful for several reasons. For example, the Second Amendment is of limited use in analyzing prohibitions enacted by states or subdivisions of states.
Despite some recent Supreme Court dicta suggesting that the individual right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment,  federal courts have been unwilling to apply the Second Amendment to non-federal action.
In all of these states, except Massachusetts, the right is considered to inhere in individuals, rather than the state government. And even in states that do have a constitutional right, right to arms jurisprudence is not as fully developed as, for example, free speech or search and seizure jurisprudence.
Thus, use of a right to arms guarantee to test the Constitutionality of "assault weapon" prohibition will involve the judiciary analyzing a Constitutional right with which many judges have little prior professional experience.
In contrast, almost every judge with Constitutional law experience will have some familiarity with a rational basis analysis. To the extent that a right to bear arms analysis does become necessary, analysis of "assault weapon" prohibition under the rational basis test can help clarify the issues relevant to the right to arms.
This Article begins in Part IIwith a brief summary of rational basis jurisprudence. Next, Part III applies the rational basis test to various characteristics that are said to distinguish "assault weapons" from other firearms.
In Part IVthe article examines another basis for treating "assault weapons" differently from other weapons--the frequency with which "assault weapons" are used in crime.
Finally, this Article discusses the rationality of a prohibition on firearms based on their suitability for sports. Taking Rational Basis Seriously When legislation impinges on fundamental constitutional rights, judicial review of the legislation employs the "strict scrutiny" test.
The legislation is declared constitutional only if the legislation is "narrowly tailored" to achieve a "compelling state interest," and there is no "less restrictive means" to achieve the same goal.
In contrast, legislation which does not involve fundamental rights is usually reviewed under the "rational basis" standard; the court will not declare the law unconstitutional unless the court finds that the law lacks a rational basis. This Article is based on the controversial presumption that the rational basis test actually matters.
This presumption has clearly been false during most of the decades since the rational basis test was created.
Many courts have treated the rational basis test as little more than a requirement that the law in question be defended by a government p.Causal factors of family violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities Introduction.
This section outlines what the literature says about causal factors of family violence and . The most negative effects of violent media content can be seen on children. It is argued that children tend to imitate the violence they watch on television, a process explained by social.
Craig A. Anderson, Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University, is widely regarded as the foremost expert on the effects of violent video torosgazete.com research on aggression, media violence, depression, and social judgment has had a profound influence on .
Cultivation theory examines the long-term effects of television. "The primary proposition of cultivation theory states that the more time people spend 'living' in the television world, the more likely they are to believe social reality aligns with reality portrayed on television.". TELEVISION.
Television has the potential to generate both positive and negative effects, and many studies have looked at the impact of television on society, particularly on children and adolescents (1,2).An individual child’s developmental level is a critical factor in determining whether the medium will have positive or negative effects.
torosgazete.com: The Other Parent: The Inside Story of the Media's Effect on Our Children (): James P. Steyer, Chelsea Clinton: Books.