Thursday, May 09, 2002
[Eugene Volokh,
7:53
PM]
FOOTNOTES ON MY WALL STREET JOURNAL SECOND
AMENDMENT OP-ED: In the future, all newspapers, or at least their
Web sites, will insist that their authors provide links to
sources on which they rely -- or at least allow authors to do this.
Unfortunately, for now, I have to provide these links here, rather
than in my Wall Street Journal / opinionjournal.com piece (though
thanks to opinionjournal for linking to this post). Here they are:
- People calling Ashcroft "radical" for his stance:
See the
L.A. Times ("scholars and gun-control advocates said they
were alarmed because they believe the 'radical' shift in position
threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the
books"); Violence Policy Center, VPC:
Ashcroft Decision Cloaked in Secrecy, U.S. NEWSWIRE, Aug. 2,
2001 ("the VPC['s] . . . 'Shot Full of Holes: Deconstructing
John Ashcroft's Second Amendment' . . . exposes Ashcroft's Second
Amendment letter as a shoddy piece of legal and historical
research that fails to support its radical 'individual rights'
conclusion").
- Violence Policy Center being anti-gun: See, e.g., Josh
Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center),
Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston
Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999, at 45 ("A gun-control movement
worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond
his proposals for controls . . . and immediately call on Congress
to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety
and Consumer Protection Act . . . [which] would give the Treasury
Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and
any rational regulator with that authority would ban
handguns."); Violence Policy Center, Ban
Handguns Now.
- Quotes from the Violence Policy Center: Linda Greenhouse,
U.S.,
in a Shift, Tells Justices Citizens Have a Right to Guns, N.Y.
Times, May 8, 2002 (registration required).
- Joseph
Story.
- Thomas
Cooley.
- William
Blackstone.
- Framing-era documents confirming the individual rights view:
See the discussion of the state calls for proposed constitutional
amendments, as well as of the right to bear arms provisions in
state constitutions, in
this congressional testimony.
- Militia
Act of 1792.
- Militia
Act of 1956 (the currently effective one).
- "Virtually no court or commentator . . ." See
David Kopel, The
Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU Law
Review 1359.
- Firearms Owners' Protection Act. See Pub. L. 99-308 sec.
1(b), printed at 18 U.S.C. § 921 Statutory Note ("The
Congress finds that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms
under the second amendment to the United States Constitution . . .
require additional legislation to correct existing firearms
statutes and enforcement policies; and additional legislation is
required to reaffirm the intent of the Congress . . . that 'it is
not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary
Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with
respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms
appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trap-shooting, target
shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and
that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the
private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for
lawful purposes.'").
- Humphrey and Kennedy: See Senator Hubert H. Humphrey,
Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, at 4 ("Certainly one of
the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter
how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to bear
arms."); John F. Kennedy, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April
1960, at 4 (discussing "the right of each citizen 'to keep
and bear arms'").
- Supreme
Court cases. See also David Kopel, 18
St. Louis University Public Law Review 99 (1999).
- United
States v. Miller.
- State constitutions: Sorted by
state and by
date.
- D.C. gun ban: D.C. Code §§ 6-2311, 6-2312, 6-2372.
- D.C. Court of Appeals case upholding the gun ban: Sandidge
v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (1987).
- "May actually facilitate the enactment of modest gun
controls:" I first got this idea from Bob Cottrol, see
Robert Cottrol & Raymond Diamond, Second Amendment Cannot
Be Ignored, American Lawyer, May 27, 1991, at 24 (“If the
courts were to send [a] . . . strong signal, backed by the legal
profession and civil-liberties organizations, that they intended
to enforce the Second Amendment, then gun-control measures could
be debated on the utility of proposed measures and without the
fear that gun-control measures are steps toward ultimate
prohibition.”). See also Wendy Kaminer, Gun Shy, American
Prospect, Jan. 28, 2002 (“Consider the practical and political
benefits of recognizing a basic right to own a gun. . . . [O]pposition
to gun controls might decrease if gun owners did not fear that
every restriction on their rights was leading down a slippery
slope toward prohibition. . . . To restrict gun rights
effectively, we may first have to acknowledge that they exist.”).
|