pageok
pageok
pageok
David Young on the pro-DC Historians Brief in DC v. Heller:

Published today on History News Network, an article by David Young which critiques an amicus brief filed by 15 history/law professors, arguing against the standard model of the Second Amendment. If you would like a copy of the article with citations, just go to Young's website, and e-mail him a request. If you are interested in studying the original documents about the Second Amendment from the Founding Era, Young's book The Origin of the Second Amendment is an outstanding, and amazingly thorough resource.

Tony Tutins (mail):
First, I would like to congratulate all on their restraint by not referring to the Historians' brief simply by the name of its author.

Second, it wasn't clear to me that the right to keep and bear arms in Pennsylvania was independent of membership in a local self-defence association. The PA constitutional provision might have been worded for the purpose of not referencing a state militia that the Quakers did not want to fund.
2.18.2008 3:41pm
Brett Bellmore:

First, I would like to congratulate all on their restraint by not referring to the Historians' brief simply by the name of its author.


No kidding, couldn't have been easy; Whenever I read any of this author's writings on the subject, I'm struck by his distant ancestor's precient choice of a name.
2.18.2008 3:56pm
33yearprof:
He doesn't use the phrase "ideology-induced prevarication" either, not even once.

;-)
2.18.2008 4:30pm
Doc W (mail):
I read the early parts of Saul Cornell's book "A Well-Regulated Militia" and found that Cornell repeatedly invokes quotations that plainly do not support his own positions. In correspondence, he repeatedly sidestepped the examples thereof I cited. He never did answer the question of how his interpretation of the Second Amendment could explain why it would have been put into the Constitution at all, i.e. how he could account for the wording of the amendment in a way that would make it an effective provision of the Constitution. What I find utterly irresponsible about attempts to "interpret" the Second Amendment out of existence is that it lends credence to the undermining of the rest of the Bill of Rights at a time when it is under attack from all sides.
2.18.2008 4:56pm
ejo:
come on, wasn't the last word on second amendment history published a few years ago by some guy, michael bell? something or other. it clearly proved that the second amendment was not an individual right and showed, just as clearly, that no one really owned guns back in the day.
2.18.2008 5:54pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
arguing against the standard model of the Second Amendment.

The "standard model"? This is conlaw, not particle physics. And it takes a lot of chutzpah to call your preferred theory the "standard" one on this issue given the (near?) total absence of relevant precedent from before the New Deal. And afaik there wasn't much before then either. Thinking your side has the better arguments is not the same as your position being a well-established "standard" principle of law. (For the record, I don't have an opinion on the merits, and I don't really care either.)
2.18.2008 6:37pm
Gern:

... wasn't the last word on second amendment history published a few years ago by some guy, michael bell


Assuming that you mean Michael Bellesiles, I wonder if you are trying to be ironic by describing his work as "the last word on second amendment history"?
2.18.2008 7:57pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

it takes a lot of chutzpah to call your preferred theory the "standard" one on this issue given the (near?) total absence of relevant precedent from before the New Deal.

There should be a Second Amendment 101 website to refer such newbies to. For one thing, the bulk of the relevant precedent predates the New Deal.
2.18.2008 8:02pm
Thoughtful (mail):
E Reed: I believe it is called the "standard" position because it is the position taken by about 95% of all (a large number) of the peer-reviewed published legal writings on the subject over the last generation, many of them by universally recognized experts in Constitutional law. You can decide for yourself whether or not you find that sufficient justification.
2.18.2008 8:59pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
Tony—I meant "after" the New Deal, "before" was a brain-fart. I'm perfectly aware that the bulk of the relevant precedent dates from before the New Deal. And Thoughtful: what peer-reviewed published legal writings on the subject? Assuming you mean "academic" rather than "peer-reviewed", the popularity of a view among (legal) academics does not make it the law.
2.18.2008 10:47pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
E. Reed -

I always thought that most academic journals - whether history, law or science - were peer-reviewed, that being the gateway to being published, or at least, the peer comments are appended to your article (and you'd better hope they liked your work...).

And while it's true that "the popularity of a view among (legal) academics does not make it the law," presumably such opinion is of a higher quality than that of most laymen and is likely to fairly accurately reflect the law - or predict the direction that the Supreme Court is likely to take, particularly in view of the overwhelming preponderance of opinion in favor of the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment by legal scholars, many of whom do not personally support that interpretation or gun ownership, but admit the fact of it.
2.19.2008 12:06am
Thoughtful (mail):
Thanks to Brooks Lyman for anticipating most of my response to Mr. Reed. In addition, I would add that the point he raised, to which I responded, was why something was called the "Standard" view. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is the law and much to do with it being the view widely accepted among academic experts who have studied and published on the topic.
2.19.2008 4:18am
Tony Tutins (mail):
The phrase "Standard Model" was apparently originated by Glenn Reynolds in A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, published in 1995.
2.19.2008 12:56pm