« Strange program in Philadelphia | Main | Letter to the Academy (Awards) »
Article on Parker in Harvard Law Bulletin
Not bad, actually. One big error is a reference to " lawyers for the National Rifle Association—who helped steer the legal strategy of the plaintiffs and backed them financially...." Which wasn't the case at all. But then the heights of academia probably feel it necessary that a major legal matter not be brought by a couple of attorneys on their own buck, just as in tales of ancient Greece it is necessary that the invader have at least a million men (even tho it would have been impossible to move, or feed, a fraction of that number).
I like this segment:
"Pro-gun activists like Froman are confident that the Court will hear an appeal by the district in Parker, and they say that they couldn’t have gotten this far without help from an unlikely quarter: liberal law professors. In the past 20 years, several prominent legal scholars known for liberal views, including Professor Laurence Tribe ’66, have come to believe that the Second Amendment supports the individual-rights view. In the 2000 edition of his treatise “American Constitutional Law,” Tribe broke from the 1978 and 1988 editions by endorsing that view. Other liberal professors, including Akhil Reed Amar at Yale Law School and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas at Austin, agree.
“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Tribe said in a recent New York Times interview. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”"
At the bottom of the article is a link to an excerpt from a book by Mark Tushnet called "Armed With the Facts" which is introduced with the claim that it's a draw between the interpretations of the Second Amendment.
For some issues it is difficult for an unbiased person to come to a confident conclusion because there isn't enough information or because the issue is so complicated. But for some issues there is plenty of information to make it clear to an unbiased individual what the correct conclusion is. So in those cases the only reason a person would be neutral is that they are so biased that they can't bring themselves to admit the truth. I think that the meaning of the Second Amendment is one of those issues. There is plenty of information to indicate what the Second Amendment means. Note that I'm not just saying that my opinion is obviously correct. I'm saying that there is enough information so that the correct opinion is clear, and therefore if my opinion is wrong then I must be extremely biased, and anyone who is near the middle is also very biased, no matter which side is correct.