The Experts below are selected from a list of 53460 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Stevenson Dru - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Smart Guns, The Law, and the Second Amendment
Penn State Law eLibrary, 2020Co-Authors: Stevenson DruAbstract:Smart guns, which originally meant personalized guns that only the owner could fire, had a false start as a promising new technology several years ago. Nevertheless, policymakers have shown renewed interest in the wake of highly publicized incidents of gun violence, as well as advances in technology. The first generation of smart guns foundered on problems with the reliability of the technology, as well as a legislative misstep that would have banned all other guns as soon as smart guns appeared in the retail market, triggering massive boycotts of certain manufacturers and dealers, and a subsequent abandonment of the project by the gun industry overall. Newer technologies, however, such as improved biometric grip identifiers, precision-guided rifles that rarely miss, blockchain or “glockchain” automated tracking, and optical scopes that send videos to smart phones, have revived interest in the products. At least one state in 2019 (NJ) passed carefully drafted legislation promoting the introduction of personalized guns, while another (AZ) passed legislation discouraging the adoption of digital ledgering technology for firearms. In addition, some leading candidates in the 2020 primary have advocated for smart guns as a solution to gun violence. This paper will explore the emerging second-generation smart gun technology, its potential for adoption by the Military, Law enforcement, and civilian markets, and the realistic prospects for improvements in safety or reduction in gun violence. This discussion will include the disconnect between policy agendas regarding firearm safety and technological enhancements driven by current consumer demand – and the murky moral assumptions that undergird both
-
Smart Guns, the Law, and the Second Amendment
Penn State Law eLibrary, 2020Co-Authors: Stevenson DruAbstract:Smart guns, which originally meant personalized guns that only the owner could fire, had a false start as a promising new technology several years ago. Nevertheless, policymakers have shown renewed interest in the wake of highly publicized incidents of gun violence, as well as advances in technology. The first generation of smart guns foundered on problems with the reliability of the technology, as well as a legislative misstep that would have banned all other guns as soon as smart guns appeared in the retail market. This proposal triggered massive boycotts of certain manufacturers and dealers and a subsequent abandonment of the project by the gun industry overall. Newer technologies, however, such as improved biometric grip identifiers, precision-guided rifles that rarely miss, blockchain or “glockchain” automated tracking, and optical scopes that send videos to smartphones, have revived interest in smart gun products. At least one state in 2019 (New Jersey) passed carefully drafted legislation promoting the introduction of personalized guns, while another (Arizona) passed legislation discouraging the adoption of digital ledgering technology for firearms. In addition, some leading candidates in the 2020 primary advocated for smart guns as a solution to gun violence. This paper will explore the emerging second-generation smart gun technology, its potential for adoption by the Military, Law enforcement, and civilian markets, and the realistic prospects for improvements in safety or reduction in gun violence. This discussion will include the disconnect between policy agendas regarding firearm safety and technological enhancements driven by current consumer demand—and the murky moral assumptions that undergird bot
Andrew Clapham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
from nuremberg to the hague issues of complexity complicity and complementarity from the nuremberg trials to the dawn of the new international criminal court
Social Science Research Network, 2003Co-Authors: Andrew ClaphamAbstract:Introduction The International Criminal Court came into existence on 1 July 2002. The new Court has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; but the Court can only try international crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002. Any national, from any of the more than eighty states that have ratified the Statute of the Court, can be a potential defendant before the new Court. In addition, the Court will have jurisdiction over crimes committed in state parties, even when perpetrated by nationals from states which have not become parties to the Statute. There are further grounds for jurisdiction but we need not dwell on them here. In this contribution I shall remain with the theme of the Nuremberg trials and use these trials as a springboard to explore three concepts which I think may help us to think about the ways in which the new International Criminal Court will operate. The three concepts I wish to explore are: complexity, complicity and complementarity. Complexity To understand what I mean by complexity in this context, let us consider some of the fundamental legal innovations of the Nuremberg judgment delivered by the International Military Tribunal. First, the notion of individuals having concrete duties under international Law, as opposed to national Law, was clearly enunciated, really for the first time, and later accepted by the international community of states. Until the Nuremberg trial, war crimes trials had been held at the national level under national Military Law.
Drew Eichorn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
biomechanical and performance implications of weapon design comparison of bullpup and conventional configurations
Human Factors, 2014Co-Authors: Richard T Stone, Brandon Moeller, Rob Mayer, Bryce Rosenquist, Darin Van Ryswyk, Drew EichornAbstract:Objective:Shooter accuracy and stability were monitored while firing two bullpup and two conventional configuration rifles of the same caliber in order to determine if one style of weapon results in superior performance.Background:Considerable debate exists among police and Military professionals regarding the differences between conventional configuration weapons, where the magazine and action are located ahead of the trigger, and bullpup configuration, where they are located behind the trigger (closer to the user). To date, no published research has attempted to evaluate this question from a physical ergonomics standpoint, and the knowledge that one style might improve stability or result in superior performance is of interest to countless Military, Law enforcement, and industry experts.Method:A live-fire evaluation of both weapon styles was performed using a total of 48 participants. Shooting accuracy and fluctuations in biomechanical stability (center of pressure) were monitored while subjects used th...
Joshua E Kastenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
fears of tyranny the fine line between presidential authority over Military discipline and unLawful command influence through the lens of Military legal history in the era of bergdahl
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Joshua E KastenbergAbstract:This article is divided into three sections, each with an analysis on the relationship between the commander in chief and Military justice. Section I defines unLawful command influence and presents an overview of unLawful command influence prior to 1950 with an instance of presidential influence which would amount to the deprivation of the right to a fair trial. Section II of the article presents a legal history of three pre-Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Court opinions for the purpose of showing the existence of judicially recognized constitutional restraints against commander in chief influence over courts-martial. These opinions present historic evidence that there has been an acceptance not only as to restraints against commander in chief influence over courts-martial, but also an understanding of the effects of such limits on the broader scope of commander chief authorities over the Military. Section III compares the President Trump’s conduct with the rectitude of past administrations as a matter of lex non-scripta, a source of Military Law. Finally, the article concludes with the argument that President Trump’s conduct over Military justice presents, for the first time in the nation’s history, the type of commander in chief exertions that are antithetical to the Military’s constitutional place in the nation.
Richard T Stone - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
initial biomechanical and performance implications of weapon design comparison of bullpup and conventional configurations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2014Co-Authors: Richard T Stone, Rob Mayer, Bryce RosenquistAbstract:Considerable debate exists among police and Military professionals regarding the differences between conventional configuration weapons, where the magazine and action are located ahead of the trigger, and bullpup configuration, where they are located behind the trigger (closer to the user). To date, no published research has attempted to evaluate this question from a physical ergonomics standpoint, and the knowledge that one style might improve stability, reduce fatigue, or result in superior performance is of interest to countless Military, Law enforcement, and industry experts. In this study, a live-fire evaluation of both weapon styles was performed using a total of 48 participants. Shooting accuracy and fluctuations in biomechanical stability (center of pressure) were monitored while subjects used the weapons to perform standard drills. The bullpup weapon designs were found to provide a significant advantage in both respects, even while subjects showed considerable preference toward the conventional w...
-
biomechanical and performance implications of weapon design comparison of bullpup and conventional configurations
Human Factors, 2014Co-Authors: Richard T Stone, Brandon Moeller, Rob Mayer, Bryce Rosenquist, Darin Van Ryswyk, Drew EichornAbstract:Objective:Shooter accuracy and stability were monitored while firing two bullpup and two conventional configuration rifles of the same caliber in order to determine if one style of weapon results in superior performance.Background:Considerable debate exists among police and Military professionals regarding the differences between conventional configuration weapons, where the magazine and action are located ahead of the trigger, and bullpup configuration, where they are located behind the trigger (closer to the user). To date, no published research has attempted to evaluate this question from a physical ergonomics standpoint, and the knowledge that one style might improve stability or result in superior performance is of interest to countless Military, Law enforcement, and industry experts.Method:A live-fire evaluation of both weapon styles was performed using a total of 48 participants. Shooting accuracy and fluctuations in biomechanical stability (center of pressure) were monitored while subjects used th...