Standing armies and armed citizens: An historical analysis of the Second Amendment
01 Jan 1988-Journal on firearms and public policy (Second Amendment Foundation)-Vol. 1, Iss: 1, pp 63-123
TL;DR: The Second Amendment was written neither by accident nor without purpose; it was the product of centuries of Anglo-American legal and political experience as mentioned in this paper, and it has been closely intertwined with questions of political sovereignty, the right of revolution, civil and military power, military organization, crime and personal security.
Abstract: There has been very little case law construing the Second Amendment, perhaps because there has been very little federal legislation on the subject of firearms. This may change, and it may become necessary for the Supreme Court to rule upon constitutional challenges to federal statutes based on the Second Amendment. Even before this occurs, it would be helpful to dispel the uncertainties that exist in Congress about the extent of federal legislative power. In order to determine accurately the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, it is necessary to delve into history. It is necessary to consider the very nature of a constitutional guarantee -- whether it is an inherent, fundamental right, derived from abstract human nature and natural law or, alternatively, a restriction on governmental power imposed after experience with abuse of power. Historically, the right to keep and bear arms has been closely intertwined with questions of political sovereignty, the right of revolution, civil and military power, military organization, crime and personal security. The Second Amendment was written neither by accident nor without purpose; it was the product of centuries of Anglo-American legal and political experience. This development will be examined in order to determine whether the "collectivist" or "individualist" construction of the Second Amendment is correct.
TL;DR: In this article, a brief explication of the meaning of the Second Amendment is given and the manner in which the debate over this Amendment has been depicted in recent news accounts and proceeds to the two chief emergent critiques of Second Amendment analysis: the individualist view and the so-called right of revolution.
Abstract: This Article proceeds, first, with a brief explication of the meaning of the Second Amendment. It then examines the manner in which the debate over this Amendment has been depicted in recent news accounts and proceeds to the two chief emergent critiques of Second Amendment analysis: the individualist view and the so-called right of revolution. Following that, four collateral claims arising from and connected with the individualist and revolutionist perspectives are examined in light of an assessment of the provenance of Second Amendment writings in law journals, as is the reputed role of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, three explanations are offered for the emergence of this new body of writing on the Second Amendment.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a list of articles about the Second Amendment or gun control that have been published in law reviews, and present a review of the most relevant articles.
Abstract: This article lists articles about the Second Amendment or gun control that have been published in law reviews.
TL;DR: The Second Amendment was largely ignored by Constitutional scholars for most of its existence as discussed by the authors, but it was adopted by the states because they feared losing their freedom to a powerful government, and they wished to cooperate with each other by founding a new republic.
Abstract: For most of its existence, the Second Amendment was largely ignored by Constitutional scholars. Recently, a veritable cottage industry has developed in which two distinct camps have surfaced: so-called “Standard Modelers,” who argue that individuals have a right to bear arms for self-defense, the defense of the state, and, in the most extreme examples, to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical, and those who view the Second Amendment as a collective right vested in the state militias for the purposes of law enforcement, to protect against foreign aggression, to quell domestic insurrection, and as a check against federal overreach. Despite the enormous gulf between them, both sides agree that the right to bear arms provides a counterbalance against the federal government. This paper uses insights from game theory to shed new light on the adoption of the Second Amendment. The states suffered a commitment problem. They wished to cooperate with each other by founding a new republic, but feared the consequences of doing so: losing their freedom to a powerful government. The Second Amendment militated against the need for a large federal army, acted to counterbalance federal forces, and created the offensive means with which to confront a tyrannical government.
01 Mar 1966
01 Jan 1957