An odd ad hominem attack on Heller

We shouldn't be surprised by foam-flecked commentaries such as this one.

Expect many more.

Well, it isn't any worse than the tripe about Heller being published by so-called legal reporter Dahlia "Doesn't Know a Justice from a judge" Lithwick, and others of a similar stripe, over at Slate.

"Gun rights enthusiasts, eager to establish an "originalist" constitutional pedigree for their developing political movement"

I always thought our political movement was pretty damn well established long before this.

Crimeny they are still pushing the failed collective rights argument when most of the anti rights doofusses have moved onto the sophisticated collective rights argument.

They point to the dearth of scotus ruling and conjure that into some militia proof ignoring the fact and the reason there is no scotus precedent is there were no fed laws which infringed the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"!

Not until the NFA which was a tax law.

The dissent in Heller can't even get the facts of Miller correct, even when it is shown to them by Scalia word for word and frequently in crayon.

Page two of the dissent has already been examined. Will the dissent correct that egregious error about Miller?

tg

Is he trying to imply that pro-gunners are Confederate sympathizers? I most assuredly am not; the NRA was founded in New York by Union officers after all. Plus, Congress passed laws immediately after the war to ensure that Freedmen had access to firearms.

(I have seen anti-gunners argue that it was a "right to rebel" by having state militias to fight the federal government.)

(I have seen anti-gunners argue that it was a "right to rebel" by having state militias to fight the federal government.)

Not surprising since that was the framers' intent.

Spitzer is simply dishonest. He writes:
"This article was not the first academic analysis of the Second Amendment. It had been subject to serious scrutiny in over a dozen articles published in law reviews from the late nineteenth century through the 1950s; all of them endorsed the amendment's militia basis.'

He fails to mention that Lucilius Emery's article, from 1915, with respect to "keep," states, "From the foregoing premises I think there are deducible several propositions as to the power of the legislature to restrict and even forbid carrying weapons by individuals, however powerless it may be as to the simple possessing or keeping weapons (emphasis added)"

Spizter always fails to mention this when citing Emery or obliquely referring to his work as he does in the article under discussion.

Obviously Emery does not read "keep and bear" as a 'unitary' right as Spitzer's beloved Gary Wills does.

Whoops. Forgot to add a link to Emery's article: http://guncite.com/journals/har1915.html

Also let's not forget what Spitzer wrote about Bellesiles' "Arming America" (on the back cover):

"Meticulously, even extravagantly, researched, this book is a tour de force. Bellesiles has done what no one before has--examined the fact behind American gun mythology. This book will transform the modern gun debate by moving it from hysteria to sensible analysis. In every respect, a superb piece of historical work." [emphasis added]

What the h*ll?! That's at a web site that appears to be backed by George Mason University: "George Mason University's History News Network." Spitzer's not with GMU, but that web site is with GMU.

Suppose someone should give a heads up to the person who runs that site about all of the George Mason connections to the Heller winning side?

George Mason's law school is my school, and here's the list of connections I know about:

GMUSL JD Bob Levy began and funded the litigation.
GMUSL's Nelson Lund wrote one of the most widely praised amicus briefs as the case was before the Supreme Court.
GMUSL's Joyce Malcom worked on an excellent brief on the right as inherited from England.
GMUSL's Dean and two professors (Polsby, Cohen, & Kraus) were on an amicus brief for the underlying case.
GMUSL JD Will Consovoy wrote an amicus brief.
GMUSL JD Richard Gardner wrote an amicus brief.
GMUSL JD Richard Hill wrote an amicus brief.
GMUSL JD yours truly co-authored one of the briefs.
GMUSL hosted two moot courts for Heller's lawyer Alan Gura.

And now some George Mason web site runs a piece that tries to suggest that the Supreme Court got it wrong?

It's no wonder that I make my donations directly to the law school, and NOT to the main university.

History News Network publishes articles on both sides of issues, but generally limits publication to academics and those with doctorates on really controvesial subjects like the Second Amendment intent debate.

Not being an academic, the ONLY reason HNN would publish my criticism of the Heller amicus brief from the professional academic historians was because several academics vouched for my expertise on the subject, and because there were clear errors of fact in the historians' brief.

My article criticizing the historians' Heller brief is at:
http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html

David, thank you for information, and thank you for the link to your article.