Customer Reviews

The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

To point out just one, Michael Bellesiles (author of Arming America), had his Bancroft prize revoked after it was revealed he had falsified his sources. Using him as a contributer is like using Jayson Blair to write an article about the 1st Amendment.

This book is well writen with a very "scholarly" air. However well writen, the conclusions reached in each essay are wrong. The fact that the term "the People" everywhere else in the U.S. Constitution refers to an individul right of the people is never addressed. Also completly neglected are the writings of the framers that support an individual rights veiw. This book belongs in the trashbin of history.

I thought that this book was very informative and thought provoking. It examines the difficulties of understanding and applying the second amendment in our modern day world. Although the second amendment is often used by the pro-gun lobby to justify its opposition to gun-control, no second amendment challenge to a gun control law has ever been successful in the federal court system. In fact, gun control laws have been around for over 200 years so apparently the founding fathers didn't see the second amendment as a barrier to such laws. Examples of early gun control laws are the forbidding of carrying concealed weapons and disarming anyone who would not swear loyalty to the state they lived in. The first article in a law journal advocating an individual right to bear arms was published in the 1960's. Before that, the consensus had been in law journals that such a right was exercised only in connection with a well regulated militia. Just what is the well regulated militia of the presented day? Federal law and the Supreme Court have defined it as the National Guard. The second part of the second amendment speaks of the people. What did the founders mean when they referred to the people? Some would like to think that they meant each adult individual. However, this understanding is not consistent with the way the word is used in other parts of the constitution. In the preamble of the Constitution, the founders refer to themselves as "We the People." Obviously not each adult individual in America was involved in writing the Constitution. The first amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The word "assemble" lets us know that such a right is exercised by the people collectively and not by an individual person. The term "bear arms" usually referred military service at the time of the writing of the second amendment. This is evident from the first draft of the second amendment in which James Madison states, "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." Although the pro-gun lobby likes to equate "bearing arms" with carrying a gun, to James Madison the term meant "to render military service." Lastly, what arms were they founders referring to? Muskets, not machine guns, semi-automatic assault rifles nor Uzis. Obviously, using the second amendment to oppose laws regulating such weapons is highly questionably.