Gun Shows, Gun Laws, and Gun Totin’: Second Amendment Fanatics Versus All Levels of Government

Keyword(s):  
1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Bellesiles

King James I stated the official position of the English governing elite on gun ownership succinctly. When it was suggested that more of England's subjects should enjoy the right to hunt and own firearms, James responded that “it is not fit that clowns should have these sports.”Discussion of early American gun laws begins with consideration of the English legal heritage. In the last few years, adherents of the self-described “standard model” of the meaning of the Second Amendment have constructed a paradigm of an uninterrupted tradition of legally sanctioned individual gun ownership in America. Such a construction starts with the idea that the British brought an acceptance of the universal ownership of firearms with them to the Americas. That cultural norm gave form to the meaning of the Second Amendment, which institutionalized an individual right to bear arms for purposes of personal and communal defense and as a security against a tyrannical government. This history matters greatly to these scholars in establishing an original intent in the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to own guns.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (S4) ◽  
pp. 105-111
Author(s):  
Erica Turret ◽  
Chelsea Parsons ◽  
Adam Skaggs

This article assesses the origins and spread of the Second Amendment sanctuary movement in which localities pass ordinances or resolutions that declare their jurisdiction's view that proposed or enacted state (or federal) gun safety laws are unconstitutional and therefore, local officials will not implement or enforce them. While it is important to assess Second Amendment sanctuaries from a legal perspective, it is equally as important to understand them in the context of a broader protest movement against any efforts to strengthen gun laws. As the gun violence prevention movement has gained strength across the United States, particularly at the state level, gun rights enthusiasts have turned to Second Amendment sanctuaries in order to create a counter narrative to the increasing political power of gun safety. By passing these ordinances or resolutions, local officials legitimize and fuel Second Amendment absolutism which poses real risks to public safety and democracy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-122
Author(s):  
Mark Anthony Frassetto

In District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia instructed that the historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms should inform our present day understanding of the Second Amendment. This means an accurate accounting of the history of firearms regulation is essential for understanding the scope of the Second Amendment. The current state of scholarship on Second Amendment history paints post-Civil War firearms regulations as racist efforts by Southern states to prevent blacks from defending themselves against racial violence. This reading distorts the historical record by ignoring the actors responsible for numerous gun laws across the former Confederacy. This article is, in part, a response to such inaccurate accounts. More fundamentally, this article provides an in-depth account of the political views of the Republican Unionists, who followed their ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment with strict regulation on publicly carrying firearms to protect freedmen from racial violence. This article’s account of Texas history makes clear that the Republican Unionists who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment held a narrow view of the right to carry firearms in public, and believed public carry could be broadly regulated. By contrast, it was the Southern Democrats — who had fought relentlessly against the Fourteenth Amendment after losing the Civil War — who advocated an expansive view of the right to carry guns in public, a view which gun rights proponents continue to espouse today.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (S4) ◽  
pp. 11-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reva B. Siegel ◽  
Joseph Blocher

Courts reviewing gun laws that burden Second Amendment rights ask how effectively the laws serve public safety — yet typically discuss public safety narrowly, without considering the many dimensions of that interest gun laws serve. “Public safety” is a social good: it includes the public's interest in physical safety as a good in itself, and as a foundation for community and for the exercise of constitutional liberties. Gun laws protect bodies from bullets — and Americans' freedom and confidence to participate in every domain of our shared life, whether to attend school, to shop, to listen to a concert, to gather for prayer, or to assemble in peaceable debate. Courts must enforce the Second Amendment in ways that respect the public health and constitutional reasons a democracy seeks to protect public safety. Lawyers and citizen advocates can help, by creating a richer record of their reasons in seeking to enact laws regulating guns. This inquiry is urgent at a time when the Supreme Court's new conservative majority may expand restrictions on gun laws beyond the right to keep arms for self-defense in the home first recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-108
Author(s):  
Chris Rasmussen

In 1966, the New Jersey legislature passed An Act Concerning Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons, which imposed significant regulations on gun buyers and dealers. Two years later, members of Congress frequently cited the Garden State’s tough gun control law as a model for the Gun Control Act of 1968. Although New Jersey’s 1966 firearms law has received little attention from scholars, the battle over gun control in New Jersey marked a significant turning point in the nationwide debate between supporters and opponents of gun control and exposed political fissures that endure today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) mobilized its membership to pressure New Jersey legislators to reject gun control. In its effort to oppose gun control in New Jersey, the NRA honed its arguments that gun control infringed upon citizens’ Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms,” contended that gun laws would not reduce crime, and charged that keeping records of gun sales would ultimately lead to confiscation of firearms. The NRA’s fight against gun control in Trenton revealed the organization’s enormous influence and signaled its emergence as one of the most effective political interest groups in the United States.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (S4) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Talbot ◽  
Adam Skaggs

This article describes why a constitutional test that relies exclusively on history and tradition for deciding modern firearm regulations is woefully inadequate when applied to modern technologies. It explains the unique advancements in firearm technology — specifically, ghost guns — that challenge the viability of a purely historical test, even if legal scholars or judges attempt to reason by analogy. This article argues that the prevailing, two-step approach, which incorporates both history and tradition, and requires a judicial examination of the purposes and methods supporting a challenged firearm regulation, should apply nationwide. That a dissenting faction of conservative judges seeks to ignore the prevailing approach presents a potentially dangerous path for Second Amendment jurisprudence. This article draws from certain historical gun laws to illustrate the difficult legwork that analogies must do under a purely historical test. It uses the advent of ghost guns as a case study to offer guidance for judges in their rulemaking practices regarding Second Amendment cases.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Blocher ◽  
Darrell A.H. Miller
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document