Criminal Law--Concealed Weapons--Tear Gas Pen
![handle is hein.journals/cwrlrv17 and id is 631 raw text is: BIRTH CONTROL ADVICE
throw of the national government;8 a lesser evil might not justify
governmental abridgement of free speech. In the light of these
facts, the Ohio Court of Appeals decided that under the balancing
test the juvenile court's judgment would have to be reversed:
Whether we apply the 'dear and present danger' test as used in
Wood v. Georgia .. . or the 'balancing of interest' test used in
Dennis v. United States... to our present fact situation, we come
to the same conclusion. The state does not have a substantial
enough interest to restrict speech in cases where a mother, in the
only way she knows how, instructs her child in ways to prevent
conception before marriage ...
Can anyone argue that it is wrong for parents to attempt to
educate their own children in areas which are grossly neglected by
our school systems? This is not only a parental right; it is a duty.
. . . We will not penalize a parent for not knowing how to be
more discreet in a choice of words.'
The import of State v. McLaughlin2° is that parents may now
use their best efforts in counseling a child regarding matters of sex
and birth prevention without incurring the risk of later prosecution
for contributing to that child's delinquency. Ohio case law is thus
enriched by a rule which upholds freedom of speech and which pre-
dudes needless state intrusion into the privacy of the home.
CARL F. GILLOMBARDO, JR.
CRIMINAL LAW - CONCEALED WEAPONS -
TEAR GAS PEN
State v. Umbrello, 106 N.H. 336, 211 A.2d 400 (1965)
The second amendment to the United States Constitution guar-
antees that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed.' This guarantee assures each citizen the right to
protect himself and his property; however, under modern social
conditions this right has been severely restricted. Almost every
state has enacted some legislation to control the use and possession
of arms;2 and such state legislation is supported by United States
Supreme Court decisions8 which hold that the second amendment is
binding on the federal government, but not on the states. Although
28 State v. McLaughlin, 4 Ohio App. 2d 327, 333, 212 N.E.2d 635, 639 (1965).
19 Id. at 334-35, 212 N.E.2d at 640. (Citations omitted.)
204 Ohio App. 2d 327, 212 N.B.2d 635 (1965).
1965]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/cwrlrv17&div=41&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Criminal Law--Concealed Weapons--Tear Gas Pen
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most