Chapman Law Review Online

Chapman Law Review Online is our new online-only journal, founded in 2014. The pieces in this journal are shorter than the ones typically found in our print journal, but are just as timely and scholarly.

 


 

On October 21, 2013, the California Court of Appeal published a decision that attempts to undermine and render impotent the decision of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

In People v. Zondorak, California’s “assault weapons” ban was challenged as violative of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Zondorak court found, however, that California’s ban was constitutional and in doing so gutted the holding of Heller by using a test that not only was not part of Heller, its application in Zondorak contradicts the words and essence of the Heller decision.

 

Under the takings clause, prisoners enjoy property rights that survive even their conviction. Therefore the question is not what rights the state gives to the prisoner, but what rights it never took away. Courts should evaluate prison property rights from the ceiling rather than the floor.

This top-down approach trips the threshold matter of procedural due process, which is the constitutional doctrine most important to this Note. I argue that Jane loses her right to the interest accrued if the conviction and sentencing provided her the required due process, i.e., if state law was clear (at the time of her conviction) that prisoners had no such right. If, however, state law was silent about Jane’s right, then it remains intact. Only after surviving the gateway due process analysis can Jane have a Fifth Amendment property interest, the necessary ingredient to her takings claim.

 


CHAPMAN LAW REVIEW ONLINE 

Chapman Law Review Online is our new online-only journal, founded in 2014. The pieces in this journal are shorter than the ones typically found in our print journal, but are just as timely and scholarly.

1)   Each submission should not exceed eighteen hundred (1800) words, nor should there be more than twenty-five (25) total citations. This will ensure that Chapman Law Review will be able to publish as many pieces as possible, in a timely manner.

2)   Please send submissions in Microsoft Word format to chapmanlawreviewonline@gmail.com. Please include the words “online submission” in the subject line and include your CV as an attachment.

3)   All citations should conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (19th Ed. 2010).