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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Stars and Stripes letter on bases as gun-free areas | Main | More amicus briefs »

Amicus briefs in Chicago case rolling in

Posted by David Hardy · 23 November 2009 12:25 PM

Here's the Academics for the Second Amendment amicus. And here's the Congressional amicus, signed by 58 Senators and 251 Congressmen, and filed by Paul Clement. As Solicitor General, in Heller Clement had argued for a lower standard of review; you don't see that here!

Our theme in the A2A brief was that talk of "incorporating" a right is a bit misleading. It implies the question is whether the 1866 Framers and ratifiers meant to apply a 1789 understanding to the States. The real question is the intent and understanding of 1866-68. Americans of this period may have thought they were speaking of the 1789 intent, but actually their understanding of rights was far broader. This is especially so in the case of the right to arms. Two major changes here.

In 1789, many spoke of it in the context of a universal, mandatory militia that was absolutely "necessary to the security of a free state." But between 1816 and 1850, the mandatory militia statutes were repealed, and the Republic did not fall. In 1789, standing armies and select militias were the path to dictatorship; in 1866, millions of Americans had served, select militias were everywhere, and they had saved rather than destroyed the Republic. The 1866 Framers as often as not omitted the militia preface when quoting the Second Amendment, and went straight to the right to arms.

Conversely, conflicts over abolitionism, "Bloody Kansas," and now attempts to disarm Blacks and unionists, caused the right to arms to be seen as a purely individual right -- the right to shoot an intruder at the door, even if the intruder worked for the State. The same Congress that passed the Freedmen's Bureau Act (explicitly referring to the "constitutional right to arms") and the 14th Amendment also enacted laws disbanding most of the southern militias, precisely because they were disarming freedmen.

· Chicago gun case

7 Comments | Leave a comment

David McCleary | November 23, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply

Dave

What is your take on the Congressional brief filed by Clement.

Flighterdoc | November 23, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply

Thanks again for your fine work

30yearprof | November 23, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply

Academics for the Second Amendment's treasury, never great, has been depleted by the expenses of producing this amicus brief. We need to raise $20,000.

If you can send a contribution, use this URL http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/ (push the "donation" button) or send a check to
A2A, P. O. Box 131254, St. Paul, MN 55113. Your contribution IS tax deductible.

Liberty1 | November 23, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply

And another one! Link to the Calguns Foundation Brief: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=243550

fwb | November 23, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply

The stretch is amazing. The 14th didn't even cover voting. If it wasn't for the incorrect Barron V Baltimore then the truth would be there. The BoR ALWAYS bound the states and the 14th is about privileges and immunites WHICH ARE NOT RIGHTS. Because the feds have no authority to punish except in 6 cases each explicitly granted (that's right 3994 federal criminal statutes are unconstitutional), the ONLY reading of the BoR that makes sense of much of the BoR is that it applied to the States even more so than to the feds.

Hypnagogue | November 23, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply

The A2A brief is persuasive, educational, and humorous. It was a joy to read -- and that's an accomplishment. Congrats to all.

RKV | November 24, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply

"In 1789, standing armies and select militias were the path to dictatorship; in 1866, millions of Americans had served, select militias were everywhere, and they had saved rather than destroyed the Republic."

Depends on your definition of Republic. To state the obvious, the War Between The States settled the question as to which was superior - the states or the central government. At that point some would say the character of the Republic changed (and not for the better). I am not one of those. That said, I don't deny some of the points made by the Southrons. The FEDGOV that grew out of that change in balance certainly has grown too big today - and this is especially true in economic matters. I hope that we can require states to respect the whole Bill of Rights, while finding a way forward to reinforce limits on the feds in other policy areas. I hope the two propositions are not mutually exclusive.

Leave a comment