« The fruits of Heller | Main | Chicago's brief is online »
Upcoming legal conference on the right to arms
The American Association of Law Schools is holding its annual meeting in New Orleans in early January. In conjunction with that, Don Kates and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund are presenting a two day seminar on the right to arms.
It’ll be held at the Radisson Hotel, in Kenner, LA,. near the New Orleans airport, on Saturday & Sunday, January 9 and 10. Each day begins at 8 AM with breakfast and 9 AM with the session.
Saturday will be a manner of roundtable on the Second Amendment, with Don Kates as coordinator.
I’m on a Sunday morning panel devoted to 14th Amendment incorporation; members will present and the rest of the morning will be a roundtable. The panel consists of:
Adam Winkler of UCLA, author of Scrutinizing the Second Amendment and of Heller’s Catch 22;
Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro, authors of Opening Pandora’s Box: Privileges and Immunities, The Constitution in 2020, and Properly Extending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the States;
and myself, author of Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment as Reflected in the Print Media of 1866-68.
As some rather controversial matters will be raised, attendees are urged to bring body armor, and to flee before the police fire pepper gas. The 14th Amendment panel will be followed by presentations on criminology and arms control.
Reservations are necessary (the hotel wants them, and earlier is better); if anyone is interested, just email me and I’ll get your data to the right person.
If anyone would like to make a deductible donation to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, click here.
UPDATE: I'd urge readers to cast a vote. It's a vote for Lowell Baeir for Conservationist of the Year. He's a hunter and shooter and life member of NRA and president of Boone & Crockett Club. He's trailing a fly fisherman by 40+ votes right now, so your aid may be critical, for a good guy. You can cast your vote here. For more info on Lowell, click here.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
I'll be there, armed with the original public meaning of the 14th! And, if I get off my duff a paper gently critiquing some rough edges of Dr. Volokh's most recent work on the Second.
-Gene
Federale,
I didn't see your post or I would have addressed your comment already. Bingham said that he would have interpreted the first eight amendments as applying to the states, but that he realized Barron v. Baltimore held that they did not. Hence he chose to use the term "No state shall" in Section 1 of the 14A to specifically overturn Barron.
If one has an interpretation of the Constitution that isn't agreed to and that same person actually passes a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine his other interpretation - well, that's a pretty strong case that the first eight amendments now bind State governments after the 14A.
And thus the contentious moments begin before the event!
-Gene
Are you guys greedily digging into Chicago's brief? It is posted up at chicagoguncase.com.
The problem is that those claiming that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States also claim that the Bill of Rights previously applied to the States. That is clearly a lie, as the 1st Amendment specifically states that "Congress shall make no law.......
That clearly shows that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and, by extension, the claim of those who argued for the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights applied to the States is wrong. You cannot claim that the Bill of Rights always applied to the States, then claim that the 14th Amendment was just an enforcement mechanism for that belief.
It is clear that those who argued for the 14th Amendment did not understand the separation of power between the Federal Government and the States.
Now, that is separate from those who claim that prior to the 14th Amendment there was no application of the Bill of Rights to the States, but that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
However, you cannot mix the two, as they are contradictory.
I think you must address the arguement that bearing arms was one of the privilidges and immunities of citizenship.
If all persons, regardless of race, are denied the right to arms, then the equal protection clause clearly does not apply.
However the equal protection clause does clearly prohibit discriminatory licensure and grandfather clauses allowing some but not all to own arms or certain types of arms, similar to the California Assault Weapons ban that allows some to own assault weapons, but not others and discriminates against new assault weapons and their owners and older weapsons and their owners.