Thread by @HeidiLiFeldman

We literally have a civil right to protection from private violence. There is nothing “entitled” in seeking vindication of that right.

For scholarly discussion of this point, see scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewconten… by Robin West

The idea that the point of government is to protect people from private violence so they can participate civil society is not simply introduced by the Civil War Constitutional amendments…

Our constitutional tradition, tracing back to the Declaration of Independence, rests on the premise that government’s legitimating purpose is to create conditions of peace so that citizens can pursue their life goals.

(In an article forthcoming in @FSUCollegeofLaw law review, I elaborate this point in relation to municipal role in vindicating civil rights.)

But in terms of the immediate fight for meaningful gun control, the point is simple. Our civil right to public safety is just as constitutionally protected as the civil right to bear arms.

So @MomsDemand, Parkland students, @Everytown should be understood as a civil rights movement, with just as much constitutional validity as a right to bear arms.

Lawmaking in the face of civil rights that can be in tension with one another is not a new difficulty. Good legislators and their staffs know how to do this.

The new wave of gun violence activists should be working with lawyer-activists to frame the issue this way to state and federal legislators.

The intersection between @MomsDemand/Parkland fight and #BLM fight against police gun violence lies in the civil right to be protected from unwarranted menace whatever its source.