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 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Rather a different world... | Main | One hell of a shot! »

Uploaded my law review article critiquing anti-2A history

Posted by David Hardy · 4 April 2018 12:25 AM

Right here.

Some of these people (including many with "Prof" in front of their name, are really outrageous.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Kevin Daley | April 4, 2018 10:44 AM | Reply

Excellent read. Thank you!

Scott in Phx | April 5, 2018 8:35 AM | Reply

Yes, good read David.

I became a (very) amateur 2A "scholar" in the early 90's though my first foray into it was in 73 as a Junior in HS when I won the District Championship in Oratory with a speech about it.

But for years since the 90's I've struggled to understand the curious militia clause of the 2A.

And although I agree in a broad sense that it was meant to protect the militia system in reality it was nothing more than a "consolation prize" to the anti-Federalists.

Because the militia clause has no teeth, and changed not one whit of the power relationship between Congress, the States, and the militia, all it is really doing is expressing the idea of the anti-Federalists that feared the standing army and preferred to rely on the militia.

And I've seen no one except Malcolm express it in such a clear manner (I re-read her book recently and was gratified to find her confirmation of what I though was my original idea).

The anti-Federalists did get their desires for a Bill of Rights met, but that lost at every turn to prevent the bane of a standing army.

And the militia clause of the 2A may be the only phrase in the Constitution that is actually without any effect whatsoever.

MattK | April 6, 2018 4:03 PM | Reply

Excellent article.

I have encountered the exact same thing when reading articles about the history of self defense (duty to retreat). Finding the original text shows so many out of context quotes which say the exact opposite.

2 things I noticed you may or may not want to correct...
pg 4 "The Joyce Foundation, which supports firearms legislation"
This sounds like they are pro firearm when they are the opposite.

pg 8 your footnote formatting from page 7 continues into your paragraph at the top of page 8. it starts with "able to locate seventeen of those sources" and continues to the end of that paragraph.

Leave a comment