Bring fact-checked results to the top of your browser search.
Originally published as 62 Tenn. Permission for WWW use at this site generously granted by the author. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S.
But what many casual readers may not realize is that those articles are simply the latest installments in what has become a rich and interesting literature. Although the Second Amendment was almost completely ignored by the academic community for the first two centuries of its existence, the past several years have seen an explosion of scholarship.
The reasons for that explosion are beyond the scope of this Article; they may stem in part from the increased prominence of "gun control" debates in contemporary politics, or from the natural tendency of constitutional law scholars to look for as yet unmined subjects for study.
But for whatever reason, the past five years or so have undoubtedly seen more academic research concerning the Second Amendment than did the previous two hundred.
In this Article, I will summarize and criticize that scholarship. By doing so, I hope to serve two purposes. First, I hope to provide readers who are unfamiliar with the literature sufficient background to understand references to it in other articles on this issue, or simply to consider themselves "Second Amendment literate.
Although some aspects of Second Amendment theory have been developed with a thoroughness that would surprise those unfamiliar with the field, other aspects deserve additional study. I hope that readers of this Article will be inspired to join in the conversation.
Introduction Before addressing the body of Second Amendment scholarship, it is worth taking a moment to put it into the context of the popular debate over gun controls and the right to bear arms.
Although it would be something of an oversimplification, it is probably fair to say that those who support p.
For example, it is common to find "right wing" opponents of sexual liberty taking the position that the Ninth Amendment,  often cited as the root of the right to privacy that is typically implicated in cases involving sexual freedom,  means nothing. Robert Bork, for example, has described the Ninth Amendment as an "inkblot" whose meaning cannot be deciphered,  and has referred to the right of privacy as a "loose canon in the law.
In the case of the Second Amendment, at least until a few years ago, there was no such caselaw or scholarship. Today there is still very little caselaw, but there is now a great deal of scholarship. That may change, and if it does it will probably be a good thing.
Perhaps surprisingly, what distinguishes the Second Amendment scholarship from that relating to other constitutional rights, such as privacy or free speech, is that there appears to be far more agreement on the general outlines of Second Amendment theory than exists in those other areas.
Indeed, there is sufficient consensus on many issues that one can properly speak of a "Standard Model" in Second Amendment theory, much as physicists and cosmologists speak of a "Standard Model" in terms of the creation and evolution of the Universe.
But the overall framework for analysis, the questions regarded as being clearly resolved, and those regarded as still open, are all generally agreed upon.
This is certainly the case with regard to Second Amendment scholarship. Unfortunately, despite the existence of unusually broad areas of scholarly consensus, this literature has so far had less of a disciplinary effect on public debate than might otherwise be hoped.
Perhaps this Symposium, by increasing the awareness of general readers, will help to remedy that problem. I will discuss this subject at greater length below. Of course, a Standard Model among lawyers is not the same thing as a Standard Model among physicists.
For one thing, physicists can revise their theories based on new experiments and data. Lawyers lack such opportunities.
The Supreme Court is the closest thing we have to a theory-testing device, but the Court does not really serve a theory-testing purpose. First, as I have suggested elsewhere, prediction of Supreme Court decisions does little to validate particular theories, given the complexities involved.
Similarly, the Supreme Court's treatment of the First Amendment until well into this century was very similar to its treatment of the Second Amendment up to this point.
At any rate, with these caveats I will discuss what can fairly be called the "Standard Model" of Second Amendment interpretation. I will also discuss those aspects of Second Amendment theory that can be characterized as outside the Standard Model. I will then make some observations of my own regarding the shortcomings of both Standard Model and non-Standard Model theories, and will close with a few comments on the way in which the public debate over the Second Amendment has been influenced or not by the scholarly literature on the subject.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What is a "militia"? What does it mean for one to be "well regulated"? What is a "right of the people"?
What does it mean to "keep and bear arms"? And what sort of infringements on that right are prohibited?For me, as a mid 30s Asian American male, I see the difficulty you may be having is the terminology you’re using. Historically, I’ve seen the “gender divide” as an issue between the sexes from a political, cultural, and social perspective.
BibMe Free Bibliography & Citation Maker - MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard. George Washington - Marriage and plantation life: Immediately on resigning his commission, Washington was married (January 6, ) to Martha Dandridge, the widow of Daniel Parke Custis.
She was a few months older than he, was the mother of two children living and two dead, and possessed one of the considerable fortunes of .
“Do you think his assessment is accurate?” was the subject line of an email I got from a good friend recently. The email referred to the article by Paul Craig Roberts “One Day Tomorrow Won’t Arrive” which claimed that “the US military is now second class compared to the Russian military“.
The article then went on to list a number of . The Wuhan Gang & The Chungking Gang, i.e., the offsprings of the American missionaries, diplomats, military officers, 'revolutionaries' & Red Saboteurs and the "Old China Hands" of the s and the herald-runners of the Dixie Mission of the s.
(Note that the Soviet Red Army military advisers sent to China were mostly German Jews, and the Comintern agents sent to China were mostly American. “Do you think his assessment is accurate?” was the subject line of an email I got from a good friend recently.
The email referred to the article by Paul Craig Roberts “One Day Tomorrow Won’t Arrive” which claimed that “the US military is now second class compared to the Russian military“.
The article then went on to list a number of Russian weapons systems which were clearly.