good article about 20 years of gun rights constitutional law

Firearms related political discussion forum

good article about 20 years of gun rights constitutional law

Postby gunsmith on Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:03 am

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... n/5945541/

Americans embrace guns: Column

Despite anti-gun hysteria following shootings, the trend is toward expanding gun rights.

This past weekend, the Tennessee Law Review held a symposium on "New Frontiers in the Second Amendment." It was a follow-up, of sorts, to a symposium held almost 20 years ago, and boy, has a lot changed since then.

In 1995, Second Amendment scholarship had been almost entirely nonexistent for decades, and what little there was (mostly written by lobbyists for gun-control groups) treated the matter as open-and-shut: The Second Amendment, we were told, protected only the right of state militias (or as former Chief Justice Warren Burger characterized them, "state armies") to possess guns. Lower court opinions, to the extent they existed, were largely in agreement, and the political discussion, such as it was, generally held that anyone who believed that the Second Amendment might embody a judicially enforceable right for ordinary citizens to possess guns was a shill — probably paid — for the NRA. Whatever the Second Amendment meant, it did not, we were told, protect a right of individuals to possess firearms, enforceable in court against governmental entities that infringed on individuals' gun possession.

But then came a wave of scholarship, much of it by eminent constitutional scholars ranging from William Van Alstyne, to Laurence Tribe, to Sanford Levinson, to Robert Cottrol, exploring the original purposes and understanding of the Second Amendment. By the turn of the millennium, it was well-established among scholars that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right to arms, one that would be enforceable in court against infringements by states, municipalities and the federal government.

And, with the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The Heller decision struck down the District of Columbia's draconian gun-control law, while McDonald made clear that the Second Amendment protected not only against federal incursions into gun rights (the District of Columbia is a federal enclave) but also to infringements involving states and municipalities. Subsequent lower court cases, like Moore v. Madigan and Peruta v. San Diego, have held that the Second Amendment supports not only a right to keep a gun in one's home for self-protection, but also a right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. The details are still being hammered out, but the right is no longer in question.
User avatar
gunsmith
 
Posts: 1904 [View]
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 2:18 pm

Re: good article about 20 years of gun rights constitutional law

Postby ericinmn1970 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:28 am

Thanks for sharing!
"The man who lies asleep will never waken fame, and his desire and all his life drift past him like a dream, and the traces of his memory fade from time like smoke in air, or ripples on a stream." -Dante Alighieri
User avatar
ericinmn1970
 
Posts: 139 [View]
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:29 pm

Re: good article about 20 years of gun rights constitutional law

Postby Vikingsfan93 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:49 pm

Most excellent article this is a great read!
Vikingsfan93
 
Posts: 15 [View]
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: good article about 20 years of gun rights constitutional law

Postby gunsmith on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:04 pm

I'd like to read the Federalist Papers.
User avatar
gunsmith
 
Posts: 1904 [View]
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 2:18 pm

Re: good article about 20 years of gun rights constitutional law

Postby Countryfried Frank on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:15 pm

gunsmith wrote:I'd like to read the Federalist Papers.

They're all here.
"Sometimes we have to get really high to see how small we are." - Felix Baumgartner
User avatar
Countryfried Frank
 
Posts: 750 [View]
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:58 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX

Re: good article about 20 years of gun rights constitutional law

Postby gunsmith on Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:01 am

Countryfried Frank wrote:
gunsmith wrote:I'd like to read the Federalist Papers.

They're all here.


Fascinating Stuff....I wonder how much Jurists refer to these papers when deliberating


The Real Character of the Executive
From the New York Packet
Friday, March 14, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

I PROCEED now to trace the real characters of the proposed Executive, as they are marked out in the plan of the convention. This will serve to place in a strong light the unfairness of the representations which have been made in regard to it.

The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.

That magistrate is to be elected for FOUR years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence. In these circumstances there is a total dissimilitude between HIM and a king of Great Britain, who is an HEREDITARY monarch, possessing the crown as a patrimony descendible to his heirs forever; but there is a close analogy between HIM and a governor of New York, who is elected for THREE years, and is re-eligible without limitation or intermission. If we consider how much less time would be requisite for establishing a dangerous influence in a single State, than for establishing a like influence throughout the United States, we must conclude that a duration of FOUR years for the Chief Magistrate of the Union is a degree of permanency far less to be dreaded in that office, than a duration of THREE years for a corresponding office in a single State.

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
User avatar
gunsmith
 
Posts: 1904 [View]
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 2:18 pm


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron