« Challenge to DC's ban on carrying | Main | Subsequent history »
Trip back in the time machine
Found something in an old archive. A copy of the manuscript (original, it has green pencil edits by the law review editors) for my 1974 article, the first law review article to argue for an individual rights reading of the Second Amendment.
It's in a manila envelope, return address "Knox, Box 3030, Prescott AZ" (click on thumbnail to get full size). Background: I my own law review turned it down as too controversial, so I had to look elsewhere. Chicago-Kent said they'd take it, but there was a policy against publishing students at other schools, so they needed to make it special in some way. Maybe a gun magazine would anoint me as legal advisor or something like that? My favorite gun mags were Reloader and Rifle, and they were published in Prescott, so I called them and their editor, Neal Knox, said sure. I guess I sent him a copy of the manuscript, and this is his return of it.
Here's the first page. Yes, the title was one that nearly 30 years later I'd use as the name of this blog. It's taken from the opening words of the Aeneid: "Of arms and the man I sing."
It's 1974. No legal academic is thinking seriously of the Second Amendment; there is just a vague belief that it has something to do with the National Guard.
The NRA has about 600,000 members, and has no ILA. One person, as I recall, handles all political and legal affairs. The Cincinnati revolt that would create the modern NRA lies in the future (it came in 1977, arising out of problems revealed in 1976). Harlon Carter is enjoying retirement in Green Valley AZ, where he can shoot rifles out his back window. Neal Knox is a magazine editor in Prescott. I'm a law student.
That was how it stood, 36 years ago. Glad that I lived to see Heller, and now McDonald.
UPDATE: I can't find where it's online anywhere, but may be able to get it scanned. Looking it over, it was pretty simple. I cite Elliot's Debates on the Ratification, Madison's Federalist 46 where he refers to Americans' "advantage of being armed" as security against tyranny, and Hamilton's Federalist 24, where he says that for the bulk of the militia the most than can be expected is that they have arms. Also the New Hampshire and Pennsylvania minority proposals for a federal bill of rights, with clearly individual right to arms, Also the fact that many early State constitutions had language similar to the 2A, which indicated a desire for protection against both State and Federal action, which must mean an individual right.
The use of "right of the people" in the First Amendment's freedom to assemble, and Fourth Amendment protections against search, and the 9th Amendment's distinction between "people" and States." And the use of "militia" as meaning the whole people, not the National Guard.
18 Comments | Leave a comment
I am proud to have been born in the same year as your law review article. :) I really enjoyed this post.
That is some excellent work, David. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. In 1974 I was heading into my Senior year in High School. Never gave guns, freedom, the Constitution or even politics a second thought.
I'm glad you did!
Your efforts are definitely appreciated by us all -- both past and present. Thanks!
Interesting perspective, too.
Wow! It took TWO of those 13¢ stamps to send that manuscript.
1974. Beginning of my senior year in high school. That summer Dad had won the NBRSA Heavy Varmint Championship with a .2980 Grand Aggregate (that would have been worth 72nd place in the 2009 Nationals if you're keeping score).
Dave, thanks for the nugget from the time capsule. I'd like to read the rest of the review article. It might be interesting to see the arguments from this end of the telescope and compare the approach to Gura's arguments in Heller -- and maybe some knowledgeable commentary (whether one construes that as a hint is left to the reader).
Wow, that's a great piece of history. Thanks for sharing it. And thanks for the great work all these years. Harlon Carter and Neal Knox weren't here to see it, but you picked up the flag and carried it over the ramparts.
In 1974 I graduated North High in Phx AZ. For the 4 years I was in Jr ROTC we carried M1's (nearly as big as me as I was 5'1" at the end of my freshman year) and then M-14's for next 3 years. Got to fire one FA at Black Canyon and an M-16 FA at Fort Lewis when I was able to go for a week between Jr and Sr year on a field trip with 30 other Jr ROTC members from around the city. Also got to rapelle (sic) 3 times from 30 ft and 60 ft towers. Cool.
And, in my Jr year I won the district championship in Oratory (6-8 minute prepared speech) on, wait for it, the 2nd Amendment. Defending it of course. Too bad I've lost the copy of that speech long ago but as I recall people were pretty impressed with it.
I was introduced to firearms at 2 same as my children were. Once I was old enough to grasp what owning firearms entailed I never in my life (close to 6 decades) believed the 2nd had anything but an individual Right in mind. To anyone who can read aand comprehend proper English, the language is NOT controversial.
But throw in a legal education, a box, and tape and you get people (legal academics, etc) trying to describe the outside of the box by being sealed inside. These legal folks are no different than Bible thumper looking to find imaginary words between the lines or by using the crystal balls they hide under their robes.
Reminds me of the blind men and the elephant.
They really think they are that smart.
Wow, you guys are old. I was 10 in 1974. ;)
Good post, with one quibble. Neil's magazines were Handloader and Rifle.
Stranger
I was born in 1974, so I'm guessing that'll make you all feel old :)
History is neato.
(I was born in 1978.)
Thanks for sharing that awesome piece of history.
Now, here's the real question, with serious long term implications for Liberty:
How do we explain 1974?
Presuming that there was a time in which the right of arms was relatively unquestioned and uninfringed and whose practice was unremarkable (see the police borrowing guns during the Tottenham Outrage) how did it fall out of favor? How could something like that be "forgotten", and widely accepted, rather than understood to be in a state of infringement?
Perhaps, if we can explain 1974, then perhaps we can someday explain 1934, and if we can explain 1934, then perhaps we can explain just where the hell our Constitution got to, and why I'm wearing a Gadsden like a superman cape.
The police also borrowed private firearms from nearby gun stores during the North Hollywood shootout in 1997.
What a great bit of history Dave!
You were ahead of your time.
Most in the movement in 1974 did not realize that the courts had slid over to the "collective right" theory of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment wasn't a core arguing point among the leadership as they were inclined to accept the adage that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. There had always been a rumble from the masses about 2A being denied, but those in power were locked into arguments about the 'effectiveness' of laws and what was 'reasonable' or not 'reasonable' - a mindset which continues in certain circles. The NRA was desperately trying not to be involved in politics.
Dad was in Heaven - living in Prescott, had a company plane to fly (a Bonanza) was reigning National Bench Rest Champion, and shooting and hunting all over the country and the world as Editor and Publisher of "Rifle" and "Handloader." He would occasionally go to DC to testify before some committee or kick some politicians in the shins, but his primary focus was on the magazines.
I think your article probably was part of what got Dad moving back to basics and a reconsideration of the mistreatment of the Second Amendment by the courts and politicians.
Some of the important history you left out of the initial post was what you did after you graduated - how your path and Dad's came together again after the Cincinnati Revolt.
I'm really looking forward to reading the full article. I hope you'll let us re-post it at FirearmsCoalition.org.
By the way; are you sure those are Law Review editor's notes in the margins? Dad was a compulsive editor and I would not be surprised at all if he marked your article up a bit.
Thanks for all of your contributions to the cause.
-- Jeff
Paraphrased ...
"That men do not often learn much from the lessons of history is the most important lesson of History."
Aldous Huxley
I am still a relatively young man ... but old enough to know that I have a quickly increasing appreciation for the lessons of history. I suspect that Huxley's advice, particularly to younger people, is that it is folly to ignore the lessons of history.
Mr. Hardy, thanks for passing down what you have seen and learned. Let's move forward with an appreciation of it. Fore-learned is fore-armed.
I was just finishing up my grad work in '74. A couple of years later I was teaching at Cal State Long Beach. I was already a strong supporter of the individual right view, having been thrown out of a speech class in high school for insisting on that topic for a presentation. I like to think that my constant discussions on the subject sparked an interest in a couple of colleagues, Joseph Magadino and Marshall Medoff, who published some empirical articles on gun control in the 80's, all showing (of course) that it was essentially worthless at fixing anything.
1974 also marked the beginning of California's attempt to ban all handguns. The result was to wake up thousands of people who had slept through the Gun Control Act of 1968. I was privileged to be one of the early members of Gun Owners of California (and later Gun Owners of America) under the able leadership of then State Senator Bill Richardson. Thanks, David, for your efforts since the beginning.
Thanks for all your hard work David.
Outstanding.
I'm glad you did too.