scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article

The Past and Future of the Individual’s Rights to Arms

01 Mar 2017-Georgia law review (Georgia Law Review Association and University of Georgia School of Law)-Vol. 4612017, Iss: 1, pp 2609
TL;DR: A 1996 *Georgia Law Review* article by Nelson Lund examines the Second Amendment right and, particularly, how a court should go about examining which weapons are protected by the second Amendment and which are not as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The most recent mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada is now the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history. In light of this tragedy, the call for stronger and reformed gun control has made its way to the forefront of political discussion. The desire for stricter gun laws, however, must be appropriately balanced against an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to bear arms. A 1996 *Georgia Law Review* Article by Nelson Lund examines the Second Amendment right and, particularly, how a court should go about examining which weapons are protected by the Second Amendment and which are not.
Citations
More filters
Book
29 Apr 2009
TL;DR: Horwitz and Anderson as discussed by the authors reveal that the proponents of this view base their argument on a deliberate misreading of history and expose Insurrectionism - not government oppression - as the true threat to freedom in the U.S. today.
Abstract: The NRA steadfastly maintains that the 30,000 gun-related deaths and 300,000 assaults with firearms in the United States every year are a small price to pay to guarantee freedom. As former NRA President Charlton Heston put it, 'freedom isn't free'.And when gun enthusiasts talk about Constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment, they are referring to freedom in a general sense, but they also have something more specific in mind - freedom from government oppression. They argue that the only way to keep federal authority in check is to arm individual citizens who can, if necessary, defend themselves from an aggressive government.In the past decade, this view of the proper relationship between government and individual rights and the insistence on a role for private violence in a democracy has been co-opted by the conservative movement. As a result, it has spread beyond extreme 'militia' groups to influence state and national policy.In "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea", Josh Horwitz and Casey Anderson reveal that the proponents of this view base their argument on a deliberate misreading of history. The Insurrectionist myth has been forged by twisting the facts of the American Revolution and the founding of the United States, the denial of civil rights to African-Americans after the Civil War, and the rise of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. Here, Horwitz and Anderson set the record straight. Then, challenging the proposition that more guns equal more freedom, they expose Insurrectionism - not government oppression - as the true threat to freedom in the U.S. today.

33 citations

Journal Article
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.

18 citations

Dissertation
01 Oct 2011
TL;DR: Johnson et al. as mentioned in this paper have published a political science Ph.D. dissertation with a focus on political science, focusing on the intersection of political science and computer science. 1 computer file PDF; vii, 162 pages.
Abstract: University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. October 2011. Major: Political science. Advisor: Timothy R. Johnson. 1 computer file PDF); vii, 162 pages.

5 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: This paper argued that the historical evidence surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment indicates that it intended to protect the right to self-defense, facilitate a broad-based militia, and serve as a deterrent against governmental oppression.
Abstract: This article argues three major points: 1) The historical evidence surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment indicates that it intended to protect the right to self-defense, facilitate a broad-based militia, and serve as a deterrent against governmental oppression; 2) the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the Second Amendment to apply to the states, and their main concern was the right to self-defense, especially the horrors of the Reconstruction South; and 3) an insincere interpretation of the Second Amendment and its state equivalents has led to the militia movement as well as an erosion of respect for American government. The article concludes that the right to keep and bear arms is as old as this country. It was first guaranteed by state constitutions, then by the Second Amendment, and subsequently reaffirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is as sacred as trial by jury and freedom of speech and press. Courts have an obligation to protect it because the integrity of the courts depends on it.

3 citations

References
More filters
Book
19 Feb 2021
TL;DR: The most extensive critical Italian edition of Dei delitti e delle pene was published in 1984 as mentioned in this paper, with an excellent introduction to Beccaria and to the modern beginnings of criminology.
Abstract: Beccarria's influential Treatise On Crimes and Punishments is considered a foundation work in the modern field of criminology. As Newman and Marongiu note in their introduction to the work, three master themes of the Enlightenment run through the Treatise: the idea of the social contract, the idea of science, and the belief in progress. The idea of the social contact forms the moral and political basis of the work's reformist zeal. Th e idea of science supports a dispassionate and reasoned appeal for reforms. The belief in progress is inextricably bound to the idea of science. All three provide the necessary foundation for accepting Beccaria's proposals.It is virtually impossible to ascertain which of several versions of the Treatise that appeared during his lifetime best reflected Becccaria's own thought. His use of many ideas of Enlightenment thinkers also makes it diffi cult to interpret what he has written. While Enlightenment thinkers wanted to break the chains of religion and advocated free men and free minds, there was considerable disagreement as to how this might be achieved, except in the most general terms.The editors have based this translation on the Francioni (1984) text, by far the most exhaustive critical Italian edition of Dei delitti e delle pene. This edition is undoubtedly the last that Beccaria personally oversaw and revised. This new translation, which includes an outstanding opening essay by the editors, is a welcome introduction to Beccaria and to the modern beginnings of criminology.

587 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The author suggested that the issue of ecological fallacy is rendered moot insofar as "the link between risk factor and outcome variable has already been established at the level of the individual" and the author calculated that exposure to television is etiologically related to about half of the homicides committed in the United States.
Abstract: VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study by Centerwall was to evaluate television as a risk factor for violence by examining the homicide rates in South Africa, Canada and the United States. METHODOLOGY: The author followed a quasi-experimental design in which the homicide rates in Canada and the United States were compared retrospectively with those of South Africa. From an epidemiological orientation, the author sought to determine the effect of an intervention, the introduction of television, on homicide rates by using as a control group a population which was not subjected to the intervention. In Canada and the United States television was introduced in 1945 while in South Africa, television was not introduced until 1974. South Africa was selected as the control population since it did not receive the intervention, television, until almost thirty years after Canada and the United States. The author compared only the homicide rates of the white populations of each country. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: The author found that between 1945 and 1974 the annual incidence of white homicide deaths in the United States and Canada increased 93 per cent and 92 per cent, respectively. In the United States, there were 3.0 homicides per 100,000 whites in 1945 compared with 5.8 homicides per 100,000 in 1974. In Canada, there were 1.3 homicides per 100,000 in 1945 compared with 2.5 homicides per 100,000 whites in 1974. The incidence of white homicide deaths in South Africa during this same time period decreased by 7 per cent; there were 2.7 homicides per 100,000 whites in 1943-1948 compared with 2.5 homicides per 100,000 in 1974. Since violence is a multifactor phenomenon involving many variables, the author suggested that the attained rate of violence reflects exposure to television, the particular country's baseline rate of violence, as well as the effect of changes in other risk factors, such as socioeconomic conditions. The author further argued that this type of population intervention study is free of the ecological fallacy. The ecological fallacy occurs when the investigator infers that the unobserved effect of one variable on another at the individual level is the same as the observed effect at the group level. In the present study, the author suggested that the issue of ecological fallacy is rendered moot insofar as "the link between risk factor and outcome variable has already been established at the level of the individual" (p. 646). Each white South African was equally without television in the same way as each white Canadian and American was with television between 1945 and 1974. The author also acknowledged that in conducting this type of comparative study there are "rough edges" insofar as prior to 1975 there could have been South African whites who were exposed to television outside of South Africa. Specification bias was reduced by choosing a control population, South Africa, with a similar social and historical background to Canada and the United States. The author examined potentially confounding third variables, but found none adequately explained the observed homicide trends. Potential confounding third variables were controlled through the use of multiple control groups. However, the author was unable to control for the effect of local inaccessible confounders since there were no other television-free countries similar to South Africa. The author found that the two major etiologic hypotheses were substantiated by the data. One hypothesis stated that the exposure to television is followed by an increase in rates of violence. Another hypothesis stated that the timing of the introduction of television predicts the timing of the subsequent increase in the rates of violence. In conclusion, the author calculated that exposure to television is etiologically related to about one half of the homicides committed in the United States. EVALUATION: The author presents an interesting comparison of homicide rates in the United States, Canada and South Africa as a function of each countries' relative exposure to television. However, the task of explaining an entire country's rate of homicide by exposure to television alone seems problematic for several reasons. The author does not convincingly justify the exclusion of the effects from other confounding variables from the relationship. For example, the relative effects of exposure to other mediums in each country is not discussed. Finally, the author assumes that the backgrounds of all three countries are comparable and that there was similar television programming both in Canada and the United States during the period studied. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) N1 - Call Number: F-433, AB-433 KW - South Africa KW - Canada KW - US Foreign Comparison KW - Countries Other Than USA KW - Homicide Rates KW - Television Viewing KW - Television Violence KW - Comparative Analysis KW - Violence Risk Factors KW - Violence Causes KW - Media Violence Effects KW - Caucasian Adult KW - Caucasian Victim KW - Adult Victim KW - Cross National Comparison KW - Cross National Differences KW - 1940s KW - 1950s KW - 1960s KW - 1970s

70 citations


"The Past and Future of the Individu..." refers background in this paper

  • ...[170] Indeed, the evidence to support this conclusion may be significantly stronger than any evidence suggesting that Washington's gun ban could have an ameliorative effect on the rate of violent crime....

    [...]

Posted Content
TL;DR: This paper argued that the extreme lack of case law regarding the Second Amendment is largely a result of the Supreme Court's tendency to ignore the need for a body of law surrounding the second amendment.
Abstract: This paper argues that the extreme lack of case law regarding the Second Amendment is largely a result of the Supreme Court's tendency to ignore the need for a body of law surrounding the Second Amendment.

23 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Halbrook as mentioned in this paper is a member of the bar of Virginia, the District of Columbia, and various federal courts and is the author of that every man be armed: the evolution of a CONSTITUTIONal right.
Abstract: Copyright (c) 1986 by Law and Contemporary Problems. J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1978; Ph.D. (Philosophy), Florida State University, 1972. A practicing attorney with offices in Fairfax, Virginia, the author is a member of the bars of Virginia, the District of Columbia, and various federal courts. 1 R. FROTHINGHAM, HISTORY OF THE SIEGE OF BOSTON 95 (6th ed. 1903). 2 The Declaration, passed on July 6, 1775, is reprinted, among other places, in Connecticut Courant, July 17, 1775, at 2 (quote taken from col. 3). 3 Id. at 4, col. 1. 4 Kates, Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 MICH. L. REV. 204, 267 (1983). [Copyright © 1986 Law & Contemporary Problems. Originally published as 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 151-162 (1986). For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Hein & Co., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209; 716-882-2600 or 800-828-7571. Dr. Halbrook is the author of THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED: THE EVOLUTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which may be obtained from www.amazon.com.]

16 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Perhaps no provision in the Constitution causes one to stumble quite so much on a first reading, or second, or third reading, as the short provision of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Abstract: Perhaps no provision in the Constitution causes one to stumble quite so much on a first reading, or second, or third reading, as the short provision in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. No doubt this stumbling occurs because, despite the brevity of this amendment, as one reads, there is an apparent non sequitur-or disconnection of a sort-in midsentence. The amendment opens with a recitation about a need for "[a] well regulated Militia."' But having stipulated to the need for "[a] well regulated Militia," the amendment then declares that the right secured by the amendment-the described right that is to be free of "infringement"-is not (or not just) the right of a state, or of the United States, to provide a well regulated militia. Rather, it is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

12 citations