"We've forgotten how to fight back"

A deputy sheriff in Denver and an Army veteran writes:

"I don't blame the [Virginia Tech] victims for their own demise. I blame the non-confrontational attitude in America that may have stopped someone from fighting back. The basic human instinct of survival has been tamped down by the reemergence of the "Make love, not war" peacenik movement of the '60s, especially on our college campuses. Our kids are being taught to avoid conflict and try to reason with the unreasonable." . . . .

Thanks to Dan Gifford for sending this to me.

Going to Japan for 9 days

I will be giving academic talks at the University of Tokyo Law School and Hitotsubashi University. For those interested, the talks are:

May 15-----talk at the University of Tokyo Law School from 13:00 to 15:00
May 17-----talk at Hitotsubashi University from 10:35 to 12:05

It has been almost twenty years since I was last in Japan so it will be interesting to see how it has changed.

The Strange link between Abortion Supporters and Environmentalists

James Taranto has a nice discussion on the link between Abortion Supporters and Environmentalists.

Pistol packin' grandma stops robbery

LAWTON, Oklahoma -- Criminals listen up. You might want to think twice before messing with one pistol-packin' grandma. A couple of would-be-robbers found out the hard way when they tried to hold up a west Lawton liquor store. What they didn't know was that the owner, 75-year-old Rosemarie O'Keeffe, was waiting for them-- armed with a gun and ready to pull the trigger. It seems they changed their minds pretty quickly when they realized they were staring down the barrel of her pistol.

O'Keeffe says she just did what she had to do to protect herself and her business. She was behind the register at her liquor store this week, when she saw something that didn't look right. Two men wearing hoodies, with gauze bandages over their faces walking up to her store. "It really made me think an ancient mummy, the way he was covered up, so you know he wasn't doing anything good." . . . .

Fred Thompson Quotes Don Kates on Guns

Fred Thompson sets the NY Times straight on the 2nd Amendment. In "Armed with the Truth," Thompson extensively references a letter written by Don Kates to the NY Times, a letter that the NY Times never published.

Thompson will have a very loyal following when he finally announces:

When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.

In March I wrote a piece saying how strong I thought Thompson was on the gun issue. I think that Thompson's statements over the last couple of months have shown that what I said was completely accurate.

Empirical results questioning some benefits from Affirmative Action in Law Schools

Mark Ramseyer and I have a new paper that might be considered somewhat controversial.

Peer Effects in Affirmative Action: Evidence from Law Student Performace

Abstract:
In the Grutter case, Justice O'Connor suggested that universities could justifiably try to enroll a critical mass of minority students. Enroll fewer than that critical mass, reason some observers, and minority students will feel too marginalized to perform at their highest levels. In this article, we test whether minority students perform better with other students from their ethnic group in a class or school. To do so, we assemble data on the ethnicity and performance of each student in all classes at two law schools - for three years at one, and for sixteen years at the other. We find no consistent evidence that having additional students from one's ethnic group raises a student's performance. Instead, we find some evidence that having additional ethnic peers lowers performance - albeit by a very small amount.

Dennis Miller is awesome: Making a serious point about gun free zones

I thought Dennis Miller was great on O'Reilly (I usually do), but this joke was just too amusing. Here is a close to exact quote:

"The fact is that by doing this stuff we set us up for something like Fort Dix where six local kids think that we are so asleep at the switch. This isn't Va Tech with a gun free zone. You are talking about an army base. and they think we are so asleep at the switch they can get an AK-47 and do us in."

I also liked his joke about whining terrorists.

The irony of liberal regulations

Here is a perfect case of unintended consequences. A lesbian couple promises a sperm donor that he won't have to pay child support. The lesbian couple breaks up and the mother sues the biological father for child support. She wins, and he loses. Here is the irony. Liberals apparently think that ordering the father to pay support is great. But what is going to happen to the people who were previously willing to provide sperm to lesbian couples? You bail out existing women who got pregnant this way, but there won't be as many future births to lesbian couples. May be it is really a conservative plot to let liberals have what they want with the notion that it will simply mean fewer children born to lesbian couples in the future. For conservatives concerned about outcomes, the issue must be a little difficult. Support the right to contract or let the right be trashed but have somewhat fewer kids born this way. I don't know the rules are for artificial insemination, but if there are some difficulties for lesbian couples to get insemination through a regular fertility clinic, this ruling could have a significant impact on lesbian couples getting pregnant.

More Evidence that Al Gore is Running

John Fund has more information that Al Gore is running for President. The polls indicate that he would be the strongest Democrat against the different Republican candidates.

Al Gore insists he has "no intention" of running for president. But that's not the signal his political fundraisers are sending. Of the 25 individuals who helped raise $100,000 or more for Mr. Gore in his 2000 presidential race, at least a dozen haven't endorsed or given money to any current presidential candidate.

"I just don't see any reason for him not to run," Sonny Cauthen, a Washington lawyer, told the Washington Times. "He's the only prospective candidate we have who has already won one time."

Former Gore campaign manager Tony Coelho has told reporters that his former boss could easily wait until the fall before announcing another run for office, noting that Mr. Gore receives between 14% and 18% in polls surveying prospective Democratic voters.

Mr. Gore will be keeping himself in the spotlight this summer. His new book "The Death of Reason" comes out this month, and Mr. Gore will be touring the nation to promote it. In July, he will host several environmentally themed rock concerts. Should he win the Nobel Peace Prize this fall, he could easily use the buzz to parachute into the presidential race. Mr. Gore has trained thousands of people to present his global-warming slide show in every state, a cast of supporters who could easily be converted into campaign volunteers. A new Quinnipiac Poll shows Mr. Gore would fare better against leading Republicans than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

In addition, John mentions that Gore is getting serious about losing weight. Anyone who has been following John's reports has to believe that Gore is going to run. With the problems developing for Hillary and Obama, this strategy seems more and more convincing all the time.

Tennessean puts up list of concealed carry permit holders, but quickly takes it down

SayUncle posts on the Tennessean's decision to post the names of concealed handgun permit holders. SayUncle refers to this as a "'steal me' list." To me the point is that it tells criminals who isn't have to defend themselves. The Tennessean apparently took down the list after all the attention that it got.

He has other discussions: here, here, and here.

Getting Rid of Gun Free Zones: A good op-ed in the Houston Chronicle

This debate is really starting to be taken seriously:

A recent Chronicle editorial predicted removing restrictions on concealed carry of handguns in certain locations is a "formula for bloodshed" and would fuel the "domestic arms race."

In opposing the concealed handgun law in 1995, the language was similar. "Blood in the streets," a return to the "Wild West," and "shootouts at every four way stop."

None of this occurred. Since then, little has changed.

The tragedy at Virginia Tech reignited this debate and again demonstrated how clueless the anti-self defense crowd can be. Once again, emotional pleas, not thoughtful consideration of the facts, fuel the editorial process. . . . .

Read the whole thing.

Another convert on ending gun free zones

Here is a columnist from Texas:

It’s not often that I agree with Rick Perry or Ann Coulter. In fact, this is the first time.

Commenting on the slaughter at Virginia Tech, Nasty Ann said:

“Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder — concealed-carry laws. A comprehensive study of all public, multiple shootings in America between 1977 and 1999 . . . found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect . . . reducing multiple-shooting attacks by nearly 60 percent.

“How did that deranged loner get a gun into a Gun-Free Zone? By the way, the other major Gun-Free Zone in America is the post office.”

Conservative columnist Michael Reagan bolstered Coulter in a recent column when he said the death toll at VT “could have been substantially lower if it were not for an absurd law that kept the students and faculty from exercising their Constitutional right to protect themselves and others by bearing arms on campus.”

According to John Terry — a defense attorney and former prosecutor who hosts a popular morning call-in talkshow on KGNC-AM in Amarillo — random shooting deaths are down significantly in Texas, following enactment of the state’s concealed-carry statute in October 1991. . . . .

Michael Reagan's piece is here.

Are schools a likely target for terrorists?

I was listening to Steve Malzberg tonight on WOR, and he made a point that he has made several times in the past. Terrorists must see the publicity that is obtained from other attacks at schools. There is an aversion to do anything that would allow people to protect schools against any type of attacks. If something like this happened, it would make any other attack that we have seen at a school very small by comparison.

Possibly a few less gun free zones in Tennessee

Well, at least Texas isn't the only place where people are rethinking these gun free zones.

Tennesseans who have handgun permits could carry their weapons into state parks legally under a bill on the move in the legislature, and its chances of passing are greater in light of the Virginia Tech massacre, one of its sponsors said.

The proposal to allow permit holders to go armed in state-run parks was introduced well before the slayings of 32 people on the university campus last month.

But Senate sponsor Tim Burchett thinks the killings may have "created a positive atmosphere" for changing the law this year. And House sponsor Frank Niceley said he may push next year to allow college students and teachers with permits to carry handguns on campuses. . . . .

The Economics of Drug Price Controls

Ben Zycher has a nice piece in today's Investor's Business Daily.

Lower prices on drugs sound great, and if the Beltway can take credit for such goodies, so much the better. So Congress has passed an amendment to the Food and Drug Revitalization Act allowing the importation of medicines from a number of countries in which governments "negotiate" — that is, impose — prices.

If implemented, this law will yield fewer new medicines, less safety and a weakened system of intellectual property protection.

Those foreign prices are far lower than those paid by Americans, even in economies approximately as wealthy as ours. Thus do the Europeans and others use their pricing policies to obtain free rides on the massive investments — about $1 billion per drug — needed to bring new medicines to market. . . . .

So many people think that they can get something for free. These rules would effectively impose price controls.

DC Circuit Court denies En Banc Hearing in Parker case

Good news: DC's petition for rehearing in Parker* has been denied.
Next likely step: DC will petition for Supreme Court review.
--
Robert A. Levy
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
c/o 8787 Bay Colony Drive
Naples, FL 34108

Article and Poll following Virginia Tech Attack

Two Bomb Threats at Virginia Tech Last Week
Here are the results of a poll on: Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?

Don Kates Responds to NY Times

I had previously posted on the NY Times article on whether the 2nd Amendment garantees an individual right to own a gun. Well, Don wrote up a much longer letter here. I wouldn't normally post something this long, but some may find the long list of journal articles of interest.

To the Editor

The pervasive inaccuracy of the N.Y. TIMES on gun issues is epitomized by the fact that "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights" is the most accurate treatment the Times has ever given the Second Amendment – and yet is still highly misleading.

From the article the ordinary reader would come away with the following misimpressions: 1) from its enactment in 1791 to roughly 1980 everyone viewed the 2nd Am. as a states right

or a meaningless "collective right"; 2) since 1980 a few ivory tower intellectuals have theorized that the Second Amendment might be a right of individual gun owners; 3) nonetheless the great majority of authorities say that is wrong.

The truth is almost diametrically opposite. Specifically:

1) From its enactment till the 20th Century gun control
movement the Second Amendment was universally understood as protecting an individual right to possess arms. Not one court or commentator asserted otherwise; 18th and 19th Century judges and commentators routinely described the Amendment as a right of individual gun owners and expressly analogized it to the rights of freedom of speech, religion, jury trial etc., etc. [See David B. Kopel "The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century," 1998 BRIG. YOUNG L. REV. 1359.]

2) The states’ right and collective rights theories are previously unknown artifacts of the 20th Century gun control movement having no constitutional provenance whatever. William Van Alstyne, a paramount figure in 20th-21st Century constitutional law, summarized the matter thus: "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the 'collective right' of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." William Van Alstyne, "The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms", 43 DUKE L. J. 1236, 1243, n. 19 (1994)

3) Far from the Second Amendment creating a states’ militia right, nearly 200 years of Supreme Court cases on the militia hold that the federal government has plenary power over the militia with state authority being limited to issues on which Congress has not spoken. [Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1, 24 (1820) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- federal militia legislation preempts state), Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19 (1827) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- president's power to call militia from state control into federal service), Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 383 (1918) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- Congress has power to abolish state militias by bodily incorporating them into federal army), Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- state militias may be called into federal service over state objection).]
4) Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment
since 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the "standard model" view of the 2d Am by supporters and opponents alike. [The phrase "standard model" originated in a review of the scholarly literature by an individual right theorist, University of Tennessee constitutional law, Glenn H. Reynolds, "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment", 62 TENN. L. REV. 461 (1995). For its acceptance even by vigorous opponents of that model see, e.g., John Randolph Prince, "The Naked Emperor: The Second Amendment and the Failure of Originalism," 40 BRAND L. J. 659, 694 (2002) Saul Cornell, "Commonplace or Anachronism: The Standard Model, the Second Amendment and the Problem of History in Contemporary Constitutional Theory", 16 CONST. COMM. 229 (1999), Garry Wills, "To Keep and Bear Arms," NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, September 21, 1995 and Andrew D. Herz, "Gun Crazy: Constitutional False Consciousness and Dereliction of Dialogic Responsibilities," 75 BOSTON U. LAW REV. 57 (1995).]

5) With virtually no exceptions, the few articles to the contrary have been written by gun control advocates, mostly by people in the pay of the anti-gun lobby. [See, e.,g. Nicholas J. Johnson , "Shots Across No Man's Land: A Response to Handgun Control, Inc.'s Richard Aborn", 22 FORDHAM URBAN L. J. 441-451 (1995).]

6) In contrast, a very substantial proportion of the standard model articles are written by scholars who ruefully state that they personally support gun control but must honestly admit that the evidence is overwhelming that the Second Amendment precludes banning guns to the general population.
[See Appendix B]

-Don B. Kates


Appendix A: The following quotations indicate my authority to speak authoritatively on this subject: Sanford Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", 99 YALE L. J. 637, fn. 13 (1989) ("The most important single article is almost undoubtedly Kates, ‘Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 MICH. L. REV. 204' (1983)."), John Randolph Prince, supra 40 BRAND L. J. at 679 ("The seminal article on the "individual rights" view is, as evidenced by its frequent citation alone, Don B. Kates, Jr.'s "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment’" ); David G. Browne, "Treating the Pen and the Sword as Constitutional Equals..." 44 Wm & M. L. REV 2287 , fn. 12 ("The idea of a "standard model" of the Second Amendment probably began with Don B. Kates, Jr.,"Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment’").

Appendix B: The following is a partial list of publications after my 1983 article through 2000 which support the standard model using a variety of differing analyses: Calvin Massey, "Guns, Extremists and the Constitution," 57 WASH & LEE L. Rev. 1095 (2000); Roger Roots, "The Approaching Death of the Collective Right Theory of the Second Amendment," 39 DUQ. L. REV. 71, 88ff. (2000); Andrew M. Wayment, "The Second Amendment: A Guard for Our Future Security," 37 IDAHO L. Rev. 203 (2000); Robert Cottrol, ""Structure, Participation, Citizenship and Rights," 87 GEORGETOWN L. J. 2307 (1999); Nelson Lund, "The End of Second Amendment Jurisprudence: Firearms Disabilities and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders" 4 TX REV. L & POLITICS 181 (1999); David B. Kopel "The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century", 1998 BRIG. YOUNG L. REV. 1359; Kevin Worthen, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Light of Thornton: The People and Essential Attributes of Sovereignty," 1998 BRIG. YOUNG L. REV. 137; Eugene Volokh, "The Commonplace Second Amendment" 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 793 (1998) and "The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 831, Brannon P. Denning, "Gun Shy: The Second Amendment as an 'Underenforced Constitutional Norm'", 21 HAR. J. L. & PUB. POL. 719 (1998), Brannon P. Denning, "Professional Discourse, The Second Amendment and the 'Talking Head Constitutionalism' Counterrevolution," 21 SIU L. REV. 227 (1997); Nicholas J. Johnson, "The Intersection of Abortion and Gun Rights" 50 RUTGERS L. REV. 97 (1997); Thomas McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan "Bringing Forward The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Do Text, History or Precedent Stand in the Way?", 75 U. N.C. L. Rev. 781-899 (1997); Brannon P. Denning & Glenn Harlan Reynolds, "It Takes a Militia: A Communitarian Case for Compulsory Arms Bearing," 5 WM. & M. BILL OF RTS. J. 185 (1997); L. A. Scot Powe, Jr., "Guns, Words and Interpretation," 38 WM. & M. L. REV. 1311-1403 (1997); Robert Dowlut, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: A Right to Self-Defense Against Criminals and Despots," 8 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REV. 25 (1997); Nicholas J. Johnson, "Plenary Power and Constitutional Outcasts: Federal Power, Critical Race Theory and the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments," 57 Ohio St. L. J. 1556 (1996); Thomas McAffee, "Constitutional Limits on Regulating Private Militia Groups," 58 MONT. L. REV. 45 (1997); David B. Kopel & Christopher Little, "Communitarians, Neo-Republicans, and Guns: Assessing the Case for Firearms Prohibition," MARYLAND L. REV. # 2 (1997); Brannon P. Denning, "Palladium of Liberty? Cause and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century," 21 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 191 (1997); David B. Kopel & Joseph Olson, "Preventing a Reign of Terror: Civil Liberties Implications of Terrorism Legislation," 21 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 247 (1997); Brannon P. Denning, "Professional Discourse, The Second Amendment and the 'Talking Head Constitutionalism' Counterrevolution: A Review Essay," 21 SIU L J 227 (1997); Kevin D. Szezepanski, "Searching for the Plain Meaning of the Second Amendment," 44 BUFF. L. REV. 197 (1996); Nelson Lund, "The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms," 31 GEORGIA LAW REVIEW 1 (1996); Scott Bursor, "Toward a Functional Framework for Interpreting the Second Amendment," 74 Texas Law Review 1125-1151 (1996); Brannon Denning, "Can the Simple Cite Be Trusted: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment," 26 CUMBERLAND L. REV. 961-1004 (1996); Anthony Dennis, "Clearing the Smoke from the Right to Bear Arms and the Second Amendment", 29 Akron Law Review 57-92 (1995); Gregory Lee Shelton, "In Search of the Lost Amendment: Challenging Federal Firearms Regulation Through Utilization of the State's Right Interpretation of the Second Amendment," 1995 FLORIDA STATE U. L. REV.; David B. Kopel, "It Isn't About Duck Hunting: The British Origins of the Right to Arms", 93 MICH. L. REV. 1333 (1995); Michael J. Quinlan "Is There a Neutral Justification for Refusing to Implement the Second Amendment or is the Supreme Court Just 'Gun Shy,'" 22 CAPITAL U. L. REV. 641 (1995); T. Markus Funk, "Is the True Meaning of the Second Amendment Really Such A Riddle?" 39 HOWARD L. J. 411 (1995);; Inge Anna Larish, "Why Annie Can't Get a Gun: A Feminist Appraisal of the 2nd Am.", 1996 U. Ill. Law F. 467; T. Markus Funk, "Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-in-Point", 85 J. CRIM. & CRIMINOL. 764, 776-789 (1995); Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond, "'The Fifth Auxiliary Right'", 104 YALE L. J. 995-1026 (1994); William Van Alstyne, "The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms", 43 DUKE L. J. 1236-1255 (1994); Glenn H. Reynolds "A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 TENN. L. REV. 461-512 (1995); Jeremy Rabkin, "Constitutional Firepower: New Light on the Meaning of the Second Amendment," 86 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 231-246 (1995); Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, "'Never Intended to be Applied to the White Population': Firearms Regulation and Racial Disparity, The Redeemed South's Legacy to a National Jurisprudence?", 70 CHICAGO-KENT L. REV. 1307 (1995); Nicholas J. Johnson , "Shots Across No Man's Land: A Response to Handgun Control, Inc.'s Richard Aborn", 22 FORDHAM URBAN L. J. 441-451 (1995); David Vandercoy, "The History of the Second Amendment", 28 VALPARAISO L. REV. 1006 (1994); William A. Walker, Review, 88 MICH. L. REV. 1409-14 (1990); Nelson Lund , "The Second Amendment, Political Liberty and the Right to Self-Preservation", 39 ALA. L. REV. 103-130 (1987); Glenn H. Reynolds, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee Constitution", 61 TENN. L. REV. 647 (1994) (extensively discussing the Second Amendment in relation to the Tennessee Constitution); Leonard M. Levy, ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE FRAMERS' CONSTITUTION 341 (Macmillan, 1988); (1986); Robert Shalhope, "The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic", 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 125 (1986); Joyce Lee Malcolm, "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition", 10 HAST. CONST. L. Q. 285 (1983). Stepehn P. Halbrook, "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment", 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 153 (1986) and "Rationing Firearms Purchases and the Right to Keep Arms" 96 W. VA. L. REV. 1 (1993); Martire, "In Defense of the Second Amendment: Constitutional and Historical Perspectives" 21 LINC. L. REV. 23 (1993); Comment: "Gun Control Legislation and the Intent of the Second Amendment: To What Extent is There an Individual Right to keep and Bear Arms?" 37 VILLANOVA L. REV. 1407 (1992); O'Hare and Pedreira, "An Uncertain Right: The Second Amendment and the Assault Weapon Legislation Controversy", 66 ST. JOHN L. REV. 179 (1992); Robert Dowlut, "Bearing Arms in State Bills of Rights, Judicial Interpretation, and Public Housing" 5 ST. THOMAS LAW REVIEW 203 (1992); Moncure, "The Second Amendment Ain't About Hunting", 34 HOW. L. J. 589 (1991); Halbrook, "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and t he Second Amendment", 26 VALPARAISO L. REV. 131 (1991); Tahmassebi, "Gun Control and Racism", 2 GEO MASON CIV. RTS. L. J. 67 (1991); Bordenet, "The Right to Possess Arms: the Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment", 21 U.W.L.A. L. REV. 1 (1990); Moncure, "Who is the Militia - The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the Right to Bear Arms", 19 LINC. L. REV. 1 (1990); Morgan, "Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional", 17 AM. J. CRIM. L.143 (1990); Robert Dowlut, "Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms", 15 U. DAYTON L. REV. 59 (1989); Halbrook, "Encroachments of the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject: Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second Amendment, 15 U. DAYTON L. REV. 91 (1989); Hardy,"The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights", 4 J. LAW & POLITICS 1 (1987); Hardy, "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment", 9 HARV. J. LAW & PUB. POLICY 559 (1986); Dowlut, "The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms", 15 U. BALT. L. FOR. 32 (1984).

An Evening with John Stossel

John Stossel is shown in these segments talking about the paperback edition of his book: see Part 1 and Part 2.

John Fund on France's Election

Conservative Nikolas Sarkozy's comfortable victory over Socialist Ségolène Royal in France's presidential race may indicate that Europe's slowest-growing major economy is finally ready for some change.

Long derided as a "center of social rest" for its cradle-to-grave welfare state, mandatory 35-hour work week, public-sector strikes and ossified employment rules, France has voted for a new president who claims he wants to shake things up. "France does not fear change," Mr. Sarkozy told his supporters as the vote progressed yesterday, "France hopes for it."

That's unclear. It's certainly true that Mr. Sarkozy styled himself as a reformer who wants to arrest the pessimism gripping a country where polls show 70% of voters think their country is in decline. He advocated tax cuts, allowing overtime, and shrinking the central government's bloated bureaucracy by filling only half of the slots opened up by retirement. "The best social model is one that gives work to everyone," he would tell audiences in calling for more dynamism in the economy. "That is no longer ours."

But at the same time the former interior and finance minister has shown a willingness to bail out failing French companies and to embrace greater protectionism. Mr. Sarkozy is certainly no heir to Margaret Thatcher or even Tony Blair, but he is someone that free-market advocates can at least do business with. . . .

NY Times on even liberal law school professors saying that there is an individual right to own a gun contained in the Second Amendment

This news article has multiple problems and I already knew most of this, but it is still quite useful that the NY Times is even making this point.

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.

Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision. . . .

Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group that supports gun rights, and a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Parker case, said four factors accounted for the success of the suit. The first, Mr. Levy said, was “the shift in scholarship toward an individual rights view, particularly from liberals.”

He also cited empirical research questioning whether gun control laws cut down on crime; a 2001 decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that embraced the individual rights view even as it allowed a gun prosecution to go forward; and the Bush administration’s reversal of a longstanding Justice Department position under administrations of both political parties favoring the collective rights view. . . .

Don Kates notes:

From the article the ordinary reader would come away with the following impression: 1) from its enactment in 1791 to roughly 1980 everyone viewed the 2nd Am. as a states right (or a meaningless "collective right"); 2) since c. 1980 a few ivory tower intellectuals have theorized that the 2nd Am. might be a right of individual gun owners; 3) nonetheless the great majority of authorities say that is wrong.

The truth is almost diametrically opposite:

1) From its enactment till the outset of the 20th Century gun control movement there was no controversy over the 2nd Am. – not one court or commentator denied that it was a right of individual gun owners. 18th and 19th Century judges and commentators routinely described it as a right of individual gun owners and expressly analogized it to the rights of freedom of speech, religion, jury trial etc., etc.

2) The states’ right and collective rights theories are inventions of the 20th Century gun control movement having no historical constitutional provenance whatever. Far from the 2d Am being a states’ right, 200 years of Supreme Court cases on the militia hold that the federal government has plenary power over it with state authority being limited to issues on which Congress has not spoken.

3) Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment since 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the "standard model" view of the 2d Am by supporters and opponents alike. With virtually no exceptions, the few articles to the contrary have been written by gun control advocates, mostly by people in the pay of the anti-gun lobby. In contrast, a very substantial proportion of the standard model articles are written by scholars who ruefully admit that they support gun control but must honestly admit that the evidence is overwhelming that the 2d Am precludes banning guns to the general population.