Professor McAffee wrote the article Heller, Nevada and the Second Amendment: Minimalism, Tradition and Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence.
In it, he writes, "In the last few years, it has become increasingly unclear whether the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is best conceived as a decision to assimilate the right to keep and bear arms into the modern tradition of fundamental rights adjudication or, instead, as a strong form of minimalist and deferential substantive decision-making."
In the latter, he writes, "While Heller and McDonald changed the landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence, they will certainly not be the final word. Shortly after the court ruled in McDonald, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Illinois, the last state to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by citizens, was violating the Second Amendment by depriving citizens of the right to carry or bear the most effective self-defense tool available, while outside of their homes. Rather than appealing, the Illinois state legislature passed a law permitting the issuance of concealed carry permits. Only time will tell if we have heard the last word from the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment but, with two 5-4 decisions to rely on, I, for one, doubt it."
To see the entire February issue of Nevada Lawyer, visit http://nvbar.org/articles/article/february-2014.
