Articles by Category

Civil Procedure

Civil Rights Law

Constitutional Law

Criminal Procedure

Governments and Legislation

For More Articles by Category:

Select a category from the dropdown below or browse our Full Listing of Categories page.

Fla. L. Rev. News

Fla. L. Rev. Forum

Brannon P. Denning
Is There a “Second Amendment Right to Be Negligent”?
Response to Andrew Jay McClurg, The Second Amendment Right to Be Negligent

Professor McClurg’s thesis is that courts and Congress have either ignored, misapplied, or overridden general tort principles of duty and proximate cause to insulate from civil liability those who negligently store firearms despite what he sees as the eminently foreseeable harm that occurs if those firearms are stolen and later used in crimes. He argues that this “irrational . . . choice” not to hold those gun owners liable is driven by an “unwarranted deference to expansive views of the Second Amendment” and is tantamount to the recognition of a “right to be negligent.” Only the First Amendment confers on private citizens a similar right in certain cases. In this brief commentary, I want to push back on his explicit premises, namely, that the Second Amendment is in the driver’s seat here, and that—assuming the Second Amendment is exerting some kind of gravitational pull on tort law—the unwillingness to hold gun owners liable for the criminal acts of others is irrational. Rather than framing the issue as one of judges and legislators willfully ignoring generally-accepted principles of civil liability, I would argue that courts and legislators have merely created an exception reflecting societal judgments about the value of private gun ownership and the possible consequences to gun owners were tort law permitted indirectly to do what the Second Amendment bars government from doing directly: make it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to own guns for self-defense. Read more.

Fla. L. Rev. Forum

Richard C. Ausness
Gun Control Through Tort Law
Response to Andrew Jay McClurg, The Second Amendment Right to Be Negligent

I have been asked to respond to an article by Professor Andrew Jay McClurg that recently appeared in the Florida Law Review. In this article, the author, a longtime advocate of firearms regulation, argues that owners and commercial sellers of firearms who negligently fail to secure them against theft should be held liable when persons are killed or injured by firearms used in the commission of a crime. Professor McClurg’s liability proposal is more traditional and narrowly focused than other theories. In the first place, because it is based on negligence, this liability theory requires that the defendant be at fault in some way. Second, it does not affect gun manufacturers at all, but instead imposes liability on gun owners and sellers when they fail to secure their weapons properly and when this failure enables criminals to steal guns and injure third parties while committing violent crimes. However, I am skeptical about whether the imposition of tort liability is the best solution to the problem of gun violence. Read more.

Environmental Law

Florida Constitutional Law