Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Local story on protection orders | Main | Historian reviews Saul Cornell book »

Essays on Heller

Posted by David Hardy · 4 August 2008 09:14 AM

Two essays by Prof. Tushnet, who is not particularly fond either of the individual rights view or of originalism.

Hat tip to Joe Olson...

· Parker v. DC

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Mike Hansberry | August 6, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply

Mark Tushnet wrote:
"It is enough to support the criticism of the new originalism that it has not supplied grounds for the choice – and enough to observe that the necessity for choice deprives the new originalism of one of the primary benefits claimed for it." (end quote)


But not only did the majority in Heller lay out many solid arguments to support their opinion, Tushnet himself provides a compelling reason to side with them.


Throughout his essay Tushnet repeats that there is no one correct answer ("The new originalism’s search for the – that is, the single –conventional understanding of constitutional terms is doomed, at least in the most interesting cases...") and yet Tushnet does not apply that razor when comparing Steven's dissent to the majority opinion.


If Tushnet is correct that there truly was “no one common understanding”, that in itself is compelling grounds for rejecting the choice requiring precision and exclusivity. In fact siding with the view that is more inclusive of the various contemporary understandings of the amendment and which does not insist on a single narrow purpose would make very good sense given the asserted lack of a single common understanding.

Leave a comment