First-ever Law School Textbook on Second Amendment Published

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Source: http://volokh.com/2012/05/15/new-te...econd-amendment-regulation-rights-and-policy/

The authors are Nick Johnson of Fordham, Michael O' Shea of Oklahoma City, George Mocsary of Connecticut, and David Kopel. Given the authors, I expect to see some excellent scholarship on the Second Amendment in this textbook.

Somewhat off-topic, I also learned that Dave Kopel was a lifelong registered Democrat who voted for Nader in 2000. Yet, he has been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment for a long time and has done a lot of scholarship and writing on the subject since the 1990s. Just goes to show that the Second Amendment cuts across traditional political stereotypes.
 
Well, if you support gun rights, that's being liberal. If you support more people being able to vote, that's being liberal. If you are trying to restrict voting rights, that being conservative. If you are trying to restrict people's access to firearms, that's being conservative, too.

I for one have no idea what it means to be Republican or Democratic because they don't bother to say exactly what "Republican values" are or "Democratic values" are. They used to talk about things like tariffs but when did you last hear that mentioned?
 
Kopel is a great guy. He took Gary Mauser (a progun scholar) and moi shooting in Boulder with his Springfield TRP.

Here's an earlier text - Gun Control and Gun Rights: A Reader and Guide by Andrew J. McClurg, David B. Kopel and Brannon Denning

It has rational pro and con reviews of firearms issues.

Also, a good read is:

Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America by Adam Winkler

Inside scoop on the Heller fight - some progun folks don't come out so good if you know the inner workings of the fight.

Winkler's book is clear that being a 'conservative' doesn't mean you are progun but we don't want to start this endless debate by folks who use the term as tribal identifiers without delving into the issues - which we don't want to do here. :D

Glenn
 
That's a hefty chunk of book at 1068 pages!

Agreed that Gunfight is well worth reading. Where Winkler and I disagree, he's really thought his arguments through.
 
The authors are Nick Johnson of Fordham, Michael O' Shea of Oklahoma City, George Mocsary of Connecticut, and David Kopel.
Click to expand...

I agree, these are excellent authors. It is very comforting to know that the first Second Amendment law textbook is being written by men of such caliber (pun intended), rather than by Justice Stevens, Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg! :cool:
 
I just wish I could afford the $160 or so bucks to buy it (you have checked amazon, yes? - Out of stock, already)!
 
It seems you haven't priced text books recently. Typically, they aren't published by charitable organizations
Click to expand...
It's not the cost that made me blink; it was the sheer size of the darned thing. It better have lots of purty pictures to go with all them words! :)

I am hoping for a Kindle version, though. The ability to do quick searches (especially in such a large block of text) beats a printed index.

(My college major required buying lots of books, some of which were only used for a single lecture. That was roughly twenty years ago, and if costs have kept up with inflation...holy cow.)
 
(My college major required buying lots of books, some of which were only used for a single lecture. That was roughly twenty years ago, and if costs have kept up with inflation...holy cow.)
Click to expand...

I know where you're coming from - I got my undergrad degree about twenty years ago as well, and in any given semester, it wasn't unusual for my books to cost more than my tuition/fees.
 
If any lawschools actually use this book, there will soon be used copies, crazily striped with hi-liter and dogeared, available for pennies on the dollar. :D
 
I may go talk to one of my law professors about teaching a class on the 2A. Even though he is a former Brady center attorney his classes on the 2A during con law was really well balanced and sparked a healthy debate.

For me it would be a fun class to take in the next two years.
 
Last edited:
We've come a long way. When I took Con Law in 1973, the Second Amendment wasn't covered at all.
Click to expand...
As recently as 2002, American Government classes in my area's high school were glossing over it in the same vein as the 3rd. It was considered an anachronism that only applied to arming state militias, apparently.
 
Geez; don't people know the constitution can't be changed and we have to keep everything the way it was in the 18th century, when everything was perfect and all problems had been solved.
 
Geez; don't people know the constitution can't be changed and we have to keep everything the way it was in the 18th century, when everything was perfect and all problems had been solved.
Click to expand...

Im not sure what your driving at but what I can say is I do believe the average joe had a lot less legal overhead back then... My goodness we are locking up people for not having siding on the house.... is that truly a felony crime or have we all lost our minds... Lemon-aid stands virtually outlawed.... I dont think were more free than the past by any means.

Few debated your right to have any kind of arms you wanted in the 18th century.. No disrepect to anyone but you want to see what happens to populations that are disarmed look at the UK... Totally out of control....
 
I've been to Britain and I couldn't tell the difference between there and back home, except I don't know anyone who eats beans for breakfast.

Anything about the 2nd amendment would be constitutional law. How much time is spent on constitutional law in law school? I have a nephew who just finished law school. Next time I see him, which will be probably in August, I just might ask him, if I remember (which I probably won't).

There is much discussion here about what the 2nd amendment means. I don't recall reading much about who it applies to. My wife's ancestor, George Mason, who actually thought of it, clearly didn't mean for it to apply to everyone. He had no problem with slavery, so all of those rights we cherish simply didn't apply to them. I'm no scholar and not even a good speller but I don't know what other limitations he may have had in mind with the bill of rights. I even suspect he may not have intended it to apply to women!
 
There is much discussion here about what the 2nd amendment means. I don't recall reading much about who it applies to. My wife's ancestor, George Mason, who actually thought of it, clearly didn't mean for it to apply to everyone. He had no problem with slavery, so all of those rights we cherish simply didn't apply to them. I'm no scholar and not even a good speller but I don't know what other limitations he may have had in mind with the bill of rights. I even suspect he may not have intended it to apply to women!
Click to expand...

Both of which were changed by Constitutional Amendment, as opposed to the more modern style of simply declaring that the Constitution says 4+4=9 and getting 5 votes to agree with you.

I don't think anyone has a problem with changing the Constitution so much as they do with the way the Constitution has been continually changed without any resort to the actual method provided for changing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top