Letter from Paust to Attorneys RE: Dum-Dum Bullets and Human Rights

    University o f Houston
Central Campus
Houston, Texas 77004

College of Law

November 9, 1979

Subject: dum-dum bullets and
human rights

Dear Conoerned Attornevs;

Having read Garner v. Memphis Police Dept., 600 F.2d 53 
(6th Cir. 1979), I wish to point out again that another article 
on the illegal bullets guestion should also be used: 18 Jurimetrics 
Journal 268-278 (1978). ---- -̂------

With regard to the question of immunity, it may also be worth 
considering the various general points made in Fitzpartick v. Bitzer, 
427 U.S. 448 (1976). On this general issue I remain very much 
impressed by the wisdom of Justice Frankfurter and Justice Jones 
as ably explained in Nippon Hondo Company Ltd. v. United States 
285 F.2d 766, 769 (Ct. Claims 1961).

In Garner, the court seemed to miss the Ninth Amendment claim.
It should not be missed bv counsel.

As always, please let me know if I can be of further help.
S i nqjereliT^'

J. Paust 
or of Law

JJP:kb



PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING ILLEGAL WEAPONS

extract from: A. Evans & J. Murphy (eds), Legal Aspects
of International Terrorism 609-610 (1978):

Prohibitions of Illegal Weapons. Having worked on the dum-dum
bullet controversy here in the United States, tlie writer finds a significant need 
to adopt national legislation to supplement legal prohibitions of illegal weap­
ons.'*'’ Weapon systems proscribed from use per se under international law are 
also clearly illegal under U.S. constitutional law.'* ' Supplementary federal 
statutory law and penal tic.s appear desirable, however, for the following reasons: 
(1) illegal \ve:ipon systems arc still available in nearly every gun shop across the 
country for purcha.se by teirorists; (2) record use of these weapon systems by 
those engaged in normal criminal activity is on the increase; and (3) several 
police officers and other citizens have been killed with these weapon systems in 
the last few years, but there is insufficient regulation of the manufacture, sale, 
and use of such illegal weapon systems in the United States at this time.

For tiiis purpose, the following draft amendment to the House draft version 
of H.R. 3625' *  ̂ is offered for e.xecutive consideration and possible submission 
to the House:

Any person who inanulactures, produces, or sells weapon systems for use against 
human beings or u.ses them to kill or injure a human being when such weapon 
systems are proscribed for use agaifist human beings under international law, 
shall be fined not more than SIO.OOO per incident or imprisoned not more than 
10 years, or botli; but if death results, sueh person shall be subject to 
imprisonment for any term of years or for life. This provision shall have 
extraterritorial effect to the extent that sueh is consistent with international law.

With the transnational availability of such illegal weapon systems, the 
United States might also recommend to foreign states that they adopt similar 
implemcntary legislation to supplement or create domestic penal offenses and to 
establisli sanctions for tlic violation of sucli international and domestic law. The 
problems posed are mo.st serious. Without effective sanction, we will witness the 
spread of the use of illegal weapons against aliens in general, businessmen, 
tourists, diplomats, and others, with serious threats to the continued existence 
of law and authority. Furtliermore, with the increased interdependence of 
societies in the global arena, and the increase in alien tourist, business, diplomat, 
and other ventures into U.S. cities and counties, it seems increasingly likely that 
the death or injury of an alien by the unregulated use of illegal weapon systems 
will lead to :i claim by a foreign state against the United States of state 
responsibility foi a death or injury by means violative of international law.'*’ 
To leave the country open to such a claim, and the political, ideological, or 
economic sanctions that can follow, is hardly policy-serving or a rational 
maximization of self- ind common interest. The United States might also benefit 
greatly from the adoption of a national testing institution that compares effects 
of weapon systems both outside and within the human body with international 
and national legal norms to assure compliance with the law.' **