Joyce Foundation at it again -- Stanford Law Review
I've posted before on how the antigun Joyce Foundation was using its millions to, essentially, rent law reviews as fora for second amendment attacks. It'd invested in symposium issues of the Chicago-Kent Law Review and Fordham Law Review, getting them to bring in outsiders as symposium editors, inviting only anti-second amendment articles, and then paying for copies to distribute to judges and legislators. Understand, most law reviews run on a shoestring. Authors are unpaid, editors get a pittance ($600 a year when I did it). Some tax-exempt place comes in and offers tens of thousands, it's unprecedented.
The spring issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review is coming out with a symposium issue on, you guessed it, gun laws and the second amendment. So I did a bit of research and found this note on Joyce Foundation's homepage, under its 2004 grants:
"Ohio State University Foundation
John Glenn Institute for Public Service & Public Policy
Columbus, OH $125,000
To host a symposium at Stanford Law School on the connections between the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, to publish papers in a major law review, and disseminate findings via the Web. (2 yrs.)"
Here's an abstract of one article in it.
Another author is Joan Burbick, who writes "Cultural Anatomy of a Gun Show." Her article isn't online, but her book on gun shows will tell us where she's coming from. "Gun Show Nation examines the lethal politics of gun ownership, uncovering a powerful, conservative political ideology that places the individual citizen armed with a gun at the bulwark of our democracy."
The views of the remaining authors, William G. Merkel, Saul Cornell, and David Hemenway, are pretty well known.
The infomercial law review! It is a sign of the desperation that their side has been reduced to, that they have to spend this kind of money to get a "respectable" sounding law review to publish this crud.
Posted by: Clayton E. Cramer at July 19, 2006 11:26 AM
They seem to learn early to sell their souls for money.
And people wonder why Lawyers have a bad rep.
Posted by: Dan Hamilton at July 19, 2006 02:51 PM
Hmm that's really not good. Anyone get a peek at what gymnastics they had to employ to get an anti-gun interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Or are they just trying to head us off at the pass re: the 14th applying the 2nd to the states?
Posted by: beerslurpy at July 19, 2006 06:14 PM
So much for Academic Freedom, and integrity. Is there no shame left in these schools?
Posted by: paul vallandigham at July 24, 2006 10:50 AM
I agree that it is unfair, unjust and any other “un” that you can think up. But, UNtill (mistyping intended) our organizations can and I think they can right now, with the bucks to counter these tactics they will continue to very effective and we will continue to sit on the outside crying about them.
I strongly suggest we quit claiming the moral high ground, spend the money and get the job done now.
Posted by: Warren Cohen at July 25, 2006 07:33 AM