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

« More on Alec Baldwin shooting | Main | Thoughts on NYSRPA v. Bruen »

My latest paper on the 2A

Posted by David Hardy · 1 May 2022 11:46 AM

It's posted at SSRN. "What 'Text, History and Tradition' Matter in Construing the Constitution?"

Among other finds I made: a lot of the antis' arguments on the subject invoke the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which seemingly banned all carrying of arms. I found that (1) the notion that British common law applied in the colonies is mistaken. Colonial charters often commanded the colonies to apply common law insofar as it fit in with their conditions. The monarchs recognized that the colonies would be dealing with issues that didn't arise in Britain. (2) The Statute definitely didn't fit in with American conditions. The colonies commonly commanded their residents to be armed and to carry arms on certain occasions. (3) As Clayton Cramer first suggested, the Statute's command is probably a mis-translation of the original Law French, in which "armed" probably meant "wearing armor," not "carrying arms."

Leave a comment