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

by Adam Winkler

Gunfight promises to be a seminal work in its examination of America's four-centuries-long political battle over gun control and the right to bear arms. In the tradition of Gideon's Trumpet, Adam Winkler uses the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a law banning handguns in the nation's capital, as a springboard for a groundbreaking historical narrative. From the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment to the origins of the Klan, ironically as a gun control organization, the debate over guns has always generated controversy. Whether examining the Black Panthers' role in provoking the modern gun rights movement or Ronald Reagan's efforts to curtail gun ownership, Winkler brilliantly weaves together the dramatic stories of gun rights advocates and gun control lobbyists, providing often unexpected insights into the venomous debate that now cleaves our nation.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Law, American History, American, Society

384 pages, Hardcover

First published September 12, 2011

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

It takes a certain kind of courage to write a book on this topic. Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands.

If you have strong opinions about guns, Adam Winkler’s Gunfight: the Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America is probably not for you.

If, on the other hand, you are able to avoid getting an erection at the sight of an Uzi, or can listen to Wayne LaPierre without every vessel in your head exploding at once, you will probably find Gunfight to be a breezy, relatively brief trip through America’s relationship with firearms.

The spine of Winkler’s book is the US Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution included an individual right to bear arms, un-tethered to involvement in a state militia. Instead of devoting a chapter to Heller either at the beginning or end of his book, Winkler stretches his description of the case – the choosing of the plaintiffs, the lower court decisions, the final decision – throughout the text. He will begin a chapter talking about Heller, and then use that case as a springboard to discuss other topics, including guns in the Revolutionary era, the Wild West, and Prohibition.

Winkler’s writing style is anecdotal. He is more interested in telling a good, illustrative story than in attempting to prove a thesis using rigorous statistical analysis. This is probably a good tactic, since both pro-and-anti gun writers have run into trouble when attempting to prove their respective positions using math. (The lesson, of course, is that math sucks).

I wouldn’t say I learned anything that inalterably changed what I already knew about history, but there were interesting factoids here and there. I was amused with the idea that some Revolutionary era laws required people to own guns. (Individual mandate!). It was also enlightening – and saddening – to see the evolution of the NRA from a true sportsmen’s club supportive of reasonable gun control to the shrill, extremist lobbyist it is today.

As I noted above, Winkler bends over backwards to be judicious and fair to both sides of the issue (which might be impossible, by definition, since many of the players refuse to compromise). In one chapter, Winkler (who nevertheless has been savaged by enlightened gun enthusiasts on Amazon.com) relentlessly mocks anyone who thinks that we could ever get rid of guns in America. He also states – oddly, based on his later chapters – that draconian gun control laws found in places like Washington D.C. and Chicago don’t work.

In terms of sheer numbers – there are millions and millions of guns in America – Winkler is right that they’ll never disappear. And his support for the individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment is intellectually supportable. But his mockery is out of place. It also doesn’t help that in making the pro-gun argument, he ignores obvious rebuttals, chiefly that the reason gun laws don’t work is because the NRA won’t let them work. That is, patchwork gun control laws, covering only a city or a state, are designed to fail.

After parroting the pro-gun side, Winkler gently describes the “gun nuts.” This chapter is a rather tepid rehash of the gun-show loophole that facilitated the Columbine massacre, and the obvious tension between “law-and-order” conservatives (who strongly support police and law enforcement) and the “guns for everyone” conservatives (who argue that Kevlar-piercing bullets are a God-given right).

I didn't want or expect any kind of vicious attack against this position; obviously, Winkler was going for something completely different. But I would’ve appreciated a deeper understanding about a culture that – out of all the rights given in the Bill of Rights – cares about guns the most. Why can’t you get excited about the 3rd Amendment instead?

Ultimately, Winkler’s position is reasonable, since all he’s asking for is logical gun control. That is nearly an unassailable position. It’s like wanting world peace, and just as likely to ever happen.

The problem is that Winkler’s equivalency between pro-and-anti gun groups is a false equivalency. He cites a few people who want to get rid of guns completely, and replace them with walkie-talkies ala Spielberg in E.T.. But most anti-gun groups aren’t asking for the moon. They’re asking for things like machine gun bans, or assault weapons bans, or bans on concealed weapons.

Pro gun groups, though, aren’t listening. Because when you say control they hear prohibition. To them – and this is simply their stated position vis-à-vis the NRA – any law regulating guns is unacceptable. When President Obama was elected, the NRA’s LaPierre predicted that Obama would ban guns within the first year. Whenever Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho or Jared Loughner or James Holmes loads up with guns and unleashes a massacre, gun sales in gun-country goes up out of fear the government might take their precious weapons.

Gun control is a no-brainer. There have always been bans or regulations on certain types of weapons. The laws in Dodge City and Tombstone in the 19th century are the same as in 21st century New York. Moreover, the fact that bearing guns is now an individual constitutional right changes nothing. Trace your finger down the first ten amendments and you will see that every right is listed without exception, and that every right has an exception (except maybe that pesky 3rd Amendment). The 1st Amendment says no law shall infringe free speech, but everyone who’s read Lady Chatterley’s Lover knows that’s a crock of crap. The government can and does regulate obscenity, and allows for laws covering defamation and slander. The 4th Amendment requires a warrant for the government to go searching your person and property, but the Supreme Court has validated so many exceptions that a warrant is now the exception, rather than the rule.

Gun control is dictated by history and logic and practice, but that doesn’t matter to many people. To which I say: Somalia has no gun control laws. Go nuts.

Personally, I’m more interested in the psychology underlying guns than the go-nowhere policy debates requested in Gunfight. I have no objection to someone having a gun. I sort of want a gun.

Mainly, I just want to know why certain gun owners get so worked up about being gun owners. What kind of fear do you have in your life that you feel it necessary to go heeled everywhere you walk? You’re far more likely to be taken to your rest by cancer or a teenage driver texting on an iPhone than you are to engage in a duel at high noon. And what kind of ego do you have to have to think that you – the armed citizen – is going to stop the next Aurora theater massacre when, last week, trained policemen showed the world that their ratio of bad-guys-shot-to-good-guys-shot is 1:9?

And why concealed weapons? Isn’t it uncomfortable? I don’t even like carrying my wallet or keys in my pocket. Besides, if you’re trying to intimidate people from messing with you, why make them guess? Wear your gun proudly. Are you embarrassed or something? If you want to carry a gun to the PTA meeting or into Hardees, just wear it on your hip. Then everyone can give you a wide berth, nod to you very politely, and wonder at the size of your penis.

Winkler’s Gunfight is an inoffensive book. It is clearly and engagingly written. He has taken time to cover the story from all angles (the acknowledgments show that he’s interviewed both sides of the Heller decision). It does a good job of translating legal concepts into plain English. And as I said before, it comes to a perfectly sensible conclusion.

The trouble, then, is not that Gunfight isn’t a polemic. I’m glad that it’s not. The trouble, I think, is that it needed to be passionate in its moderateness. It is not. Unfortunately, that lack of passion sort of means you’re just shooting blanks your argument is going to get lost in the wind.

[Matt (Fully supports developing sentient AGI) · Rating 4 out of 5]

DC v. Heller (2008) guaranteed the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms independent of the prefatory militia clause. Gunfight chronicles the events ushering Dick Heller's case to the Supreme Court, the arguments presented, and the aftermath. If you are interested in the current state of gun politics in the US, start here.

[Joseph Ribera · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a lawyer and gun owner, I really enjoyed this book. Adam Winkler analyzes the legal history underlying the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia, that held for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms for self defense, not just in the context of a militia.

Winkler does not espouse either the "gun nuts" or the "gun grabbers" points of view and does a wonderful job of describing each and their history.

This is a current, timely and complete review of the legal history of both gun rights and gun control since before the birth of the nation.

In conveying this history, Winkler demonstrates that both sides in the debate are right and wrong. There has always been a right for the individual to keep and bear arms and there have always been limits on that right.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

America has over the last few decades in particular become a hyper polarized country where on a variety of issues, there is seemingly no middle ground. Gay marriage, abortion, and perhaps more than any other, guns.
As such, it’s difficult to conceive of a book that can take this topic and analyze it objectively. Yet much to the author’s credit, this is exactly what he does with “Gunfight”. It’s an astonishingly fair and nuanced look at America’s history with gun ownership and its ever present corollary, gun control. Perhaps most wouldn’t be surprised that going back to the 18th century, America has been awash with guns. More surprisingly however, particularly in today’s anti-regulation climate, is how many restrictions were placed on them. Laws were made requiring registration, safe storage of ammunition, and a host of other restrictions that would’ve sent modern day gun rights advocates into apoplectic shock.
Up until the late 1960’s in fact, America seems to be quite comfortable with gun ownership so long as it was moderated with sensible regulation. Take the words for example of Karl Frederick, president of the NRA in the 1930’s:

“When Frederick testified in congressional hearings over Homer Cummings’s proposed National Firearms Act, he commended the states for the recent wave of gun laws restricting the carrying of guns. ‘I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons’, he said. Although in special situations one might need a firearm for self defense, ‘I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.’ ”

Or the the governor of Texas:

“As Governor James Stephen Hogg of Texas said at the time, ‘the mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man.’ ”

Or J. Edgar Hoover:

“ ’What excuse can there possibly be for permitting the sale of machine guns?’, Hoover asked.”

It wasn’t until the rise of the Black Panthers and the fear and racism they inspired in the late 1960’s, as well as their willingness to openly carry weapons that more draconian gun control laws began to see the light of day. At the forefront of the crackdown on guns was the governor of California at the time and everyone’s favorite bleeding heart liberal Ronald Reagan who on the day a group of armed Panthers showed up on the steps of the capitol in Sacramento decided he was a staunch supporter of gun control:

“ ’There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons’. Guns, he said were ‘a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.’ ”

From this point however, America began to see a backlash, spurred on by an ever increasingly militant NRA, which led in a straight line to where we are today. The premise of this book, and one that is argued incredibly persuasively, is that guns need not be a zero sum game. As the author points out, there are approximately 280 million guns in America, almost one per person. Any gun control movement geared toward confiscating or making all those guns illegal is doomed to failure both practically and emotionally. In a violent world, the majority of gun owners have a gun to protect themselves or their families. At the same time, semi automatic weapons that fire 100 rounds a minute surely aren’t necessary for this objective.
Perhaps the author, and myself after reading this book, are too optimistic about the possibility that common ground can be found where people can own guns while being subjected to moderate restrictions like Americans have for most of their history. However if Americans ever do decide they are going to talk, this important book provides a good template for fruitful conversations in that direction.

[Savannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started looking for a book on gun control after both of my constitutional law classes skipped right over the Second Amendment. I wanted something moderate, fair, and fact-based, which was (not surprisingly) difficult to find. I liked this one, though. I learned a lot about America's history with firearms, the author seemed relatively unbiased, and structuring the book around the Heller narrative was a good idea. Personally, I would've liked a more in-depth legal discussion, but since it was written for a more mainstream audience it makes sense that certain sections were a bit watered down. Overall, though, probably 3.5-4/5 stars and definitely worth the read for anyone struggling to find some reasonable perspectives amid the ultra-extremist debate these days.

[Eric_W]

Not yet read, but a general comment. I think it's a mistake to conflate love of guns with the Republican Party. The fact remains that many Democrats love their guns also. Hence Bernie Sanders' position in Vermont. What the Democrats need to do is stop ceding the language to the opposition. Just the phrase "gun control" strikes fear into the hearts of those who like their guns. Yet I suspect a majority of gun owners would rally to a campaign that said "let's keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill." A campaign thusly phrased would be hard for anyone to oppose including an NRA that at one time favored background checks, and it might lead to substantive discussions.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an EXCELLENT book!!!! Winkler does a fantastic job of telling the story of how the Heller case made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and why the Court decided it the way it did. I also liked his narrative device in conveying lots of background information. For example, in his chapter on Gura's SCOTUS argument (Gura argued for Heller and for the recognition of the individual right to own a gun in DC), Winkler went back to 1960s California and the rise of the Black Panther party. Most interesting that lots of ideas about gun control come because conservatives were afraid of law-abiding Black Panthers carrying loaded weapons. Each chapter is like that. Tons of background by way of understanding the development of the Heller case.
Winkler seems to be a left-of-center guy who believes two things: there is an individual right to own a gun, but there's lots of Constitutional room for gun control - and an impressive American history of gun control laws. This approach appeals to my moderate preferences, but the one weakness to the book is that Winkler didn't give a fair enough accounting to those who reject the individual right (or "standard") belief and instead think the Second Amendment is more about militias. Perhaps the militia theory is incorrect, but it deserved a better telling, and people like Lawrence Delbert Cress and Jack Rakove wrote exemplary defenses of that theory. Finally, Winkler does a great job in recounting two frauds in the gun debate. On the left was Michael A. Bellesiles, who ended up getting fired from Emory University for his bad work. On the right is John Lott. Thanks to the standards of social science, both people have had to answer for their lies.
Anyway, Gunfight is a GREAT book.

[Aaron Cooley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Adam Winkler's even-handed and fair approach to the history of the Second Amendment is a refreshingly sober alternative to the extreme rhetoric filling the halls of Congress since Newtown. I highly recommend not looking up the result of the Supreme Court decision the book is framed around (Heller v. District of Columbia); Winkler shows dramatic prowess in keeping our appetites whet by mixing in frequent check-ins with the cast of lawyers and litigants in that case amongst his historical weavings. The only slight drawback in this scholarly work is that it already feels a bit dated in the wake of Sandy Hook, but writing it in a time not dripping so heavily in rancor from both sides of the gun control war clearly gave Winkler the distance to craft a neutral work that is fair to both sides. (His frequent contributions to THE DAILY BEAST don't hew so close to the middle ground.)

[Wendy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very readable look at the legal and historical dimensions of gun ownership in the US. Takes an in-depth look at the landmark DC v. Heller case, interspersed with a really interesting collection of moments in US gun history. It's pretty balanced, finding issue with extremist "gun nuts" and "gun grabbers" both, though it's evident the author leans toward the promise of moderate and effective gun control (ie, if you feel strongly about a totally unfettered right to bear arms, this book will probably make you angry).

[Dawn Tessman · Rating 4 out of 5]

An informative read on a difficult and, often, emotional topic. I enjoyed this book quite a bit and appreciated the author in particular for his even-handed telling of the facts. The narrative is engaging and flows with ease. The behind-the-scenes look at the court case, interesting in its own right, is interrupted at regular intervals as the author leads us past-to-present in a fascinating chronicle through colonial times, frontier days, the Civil War, Prohibition, the civil rights movement, the Black Power movement, and Columbine before finally bringing us back full-circle to DC’s controversial gun law case as it’s being decided. I liked this writing style, as it added some suspense. And, I found the book to be insightful. It has certainly helped firm up my views on the subject. It is a fascinating thing...how law drives our actions, but also how actions can drive law.

If you are looking to become educated on the history of guns and gun law via a fair and impartial voice, I recommend this book. If, however, you are looking for a one-sided, militant account to further support an extreme right-wing or left-wing viewpoint you already hold, go fish.

[Sebastiaan Blok · Rating 4 out of 5]

Winkler, frustratingly, walks a tightrope of neutrality on the issue of gun control/rights. He draws an equivalency between the wrongs of being a gun control extremist with being a gun rights extremist, something that I substantively disagree on.

Written after, and structured around, the supreme court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Gunfight is nevertheless an enjoyable read on the history of, and historical context surrounding gun legislation. It is not—at least in bulk—a treatise on the merits of gun control and/or rights; Gunfight sketches out the legislative, geopolitical, and social history that underlies gun rights and control in the U.S., and how these evolved over time, culminating in our current, polarised milieu.

A surprisingly entertaining, informative read in that regard. If you feel strongly about the gun debate, treat this as purely a factually informative, rather than judgemental, book, even if some anecdotes appear misquoted (as they did, to me, to favour the gun rights movement).

[Marianne (Mazziebee) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am European, but have lived in the US for many years now. I did not understand Americans' attachment to their guns...get rid of them, I thought! By reading this book I understand a little bit better about the American relationship with guns, and concede we are probably never going to get rid of them. But I also was glad to see that gun control is also as American as Apple Pie. We need to work to create EFFECTIVE laws...this book gave me hope that it is possible and a new way to both think about and discuss this issue.

[Jud Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this account of the Heller case from its libertarian inception through the final decision, with personal background on the principals, interspersed with a history of the American experience with guns and the legal (and presumably constitutional) limitation on their use and carriage, author Winkler presents an evenhanded, moderate view: yes, gun rights for individual self-defense was taken for granted by the founders, but at the same time there has been robust gun control throughout US history, mostly in the legal province of states and localities, including the frontier towns of the so-called "wild West."

In this history, according to law professor (UCLA) Winkler, it was the 14th amendment that broadened the scope of the 2nd amendment from militia supply to self-defense. In the minds of its authors, the 14th was a response to the widespread, forcible disarming of freedmen by the defeated but unbowed former Confederates. Among the "privileges and immunities" guaranteed to individuals against State infringement were -- as listed by Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan in advocating for the amendment -- "the right to keep and bear arms." (pp. 141-2)

Winkler, p. 142: "The founding fathers may have thought the Second Amendment was first and foremost about protecting state militias, but the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment defined the right to keep and bear arms primarily in terms of individual self-defense. The freedmen had a right to defend themselves from the racist state militias and marauding Klansmen."

But is the Scalia majority opinion in Heller really originalism, as it claims to be? A critique from the right (Nelson Lund) is that it was not. Scalia famously claimed that handguns should be allowed because they were in common use. In Winkler's account of a Lund speech to the Federalist Society, "a true originalist wouldn't care why people today like handguns, he would ask whether Americans in the late 1700s thought that the Second Amendment prohibited a ban on handguns. Lund didn't know the answer to that question -- but neither did the Supreme Court. [p. 285] … In fact, the founding fathers didn't always believe that the guns commonly owned by civilians were good enough. Many of the guns ordinary people owned were useful to shoot birds and other small animals for food or sport, but militias required military weapons. As a result, when Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, it required militia members to outfit themselves with the specific firearms that weren't necessarily already in the closet: 'ever citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet … or with a good rifle … and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.' Such specificity was required because the guns commonly owned by civilians were often the wrong kind." [p. 286]

Of Scalia's famous list of Second Amendment exceptions available to states and localities to control guns, Lund said it was provided without any historical justification.

Thus, "the irony of Scalia's opinion was that the heralded 'triumph of originalism' in fact reflected a thoroughly modern understanding of gun rights. The primary justification for the right of individuals to bear arms, in Scalia's view, is self-defense in the home. At the time of the founding, however, the primary justification for it were to preserve the right of the people to throw off a tyrannical government, to serve in the militia for national defense, or to go out in the wilderness and hunt. Few, if any, arguments for the right rested on the ability to defend your home against criminal attack. The right envisioned by the founders was anything but homebound." [p. 287, with cite to author's own 2009 UCLA law review article entitled "Heller's Catch-22."

[Jade Haydock · Rating 3 out of 5]

I actually learned a lot from this book and I think my ambivalence may have to do with it not taking the discussion where I would have liked it to go. It ultimately reads mostly as a contextualizing and defense of the Heller decision and doesn’t do much to address some interesting (compelling) questions that it raises - in particular the rise of the gun rights movement as a consequence of the persecution/prosecution of the Black Panther Party and how/whether gun control disproportionately impacts vulnerable minorities (that is, how much gun control is aimed at disarming black men, basically.) I think there is a lot of truth in the author’s position that there are too many guns in America for getting rid of a meaningful number of them to be viable in the short or even medium term but I was disappointed that he didn’t have much at all to say about what other policies might helpfully be pursued (other than keeping guns out of the hands of “gangbangers” and criminals; fair to say I wasn’t blown away by his... wokeness.)

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like this is one of the first non-fiction books I want to keep on the shelf to hand out to other people. I don’t like the state of most gun/gun control “debate” — it seems to quickly devolve into accusatory tribalism that appears light in fact and unlikely to advance either agenda — so it is refreshing to see this kind of nuanced, detailed, and (shockingly) balanced discussion of how this issue came to occupy the space it does in our cultural consciousness.

Where-ever you stand on this issue, i think this book would leave you better informed on its roots, the motivations of those who have argued it throughout American history, and the depth and complexity of its historical underpinnings.

[Jared · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting review of the history of gun rights and regulations in the US. Seemed fairly balanced by presenting positives and negatives of both arguments (although reading the negative reviews you’d think the author was arguing for gun prohibition, which he never once does). The author is an academic scholar so he obviously takes a more nuanced and data-informed view of the second amendment. For me, the take home message of the book was that gun rights and gun regulation have always existed hand-in-hand though-out our history. Also, since the supreme court decision, D.C. vs Heller, was pivotal in forming the “individual right” to buy guns, the author does into great historical detail in the inner workings of the supreme court itself, which was fascinating.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely consider this a worthy read that offers a compelling historiography of the wide variety of interpretations of the 2nd Amendment over the entirety of its existence as part of our founding document, the US Constitution. That said, the book feels hollow by what it omits, a clear description of the race-based logic for the radical new interpretation of perhaps the most controversial proviso in the Bill of Rights.

Winkler tiptoes around it but never quite comes out and says white anxiety was a crucial part of the motivation for the NRA and the far right’s push for unrestricted gun ownership rights. Curious considering the timing of all of this coincided with the “Law and Order” codification of racist language that sprang up in the wake of the 1960s and the incredible legal success of the Civil Rights Movement.

[Abbie Simons · Rating 5 out of 5]

An informative and well-written history of guns and gun control in America. This isn't a book that necessarily "takes a side", other than to argue that gun control has been around just as long as guns have, and that the sooner the "gun grabbers" and "gun nuts" are able to compromise, the better. Winkler runs through several court cases involving gun legislation and explains how the interpretation of the second amendment has evolved and risen to prominence, and the contexts in which it did so. It also covers the evolution of the NRA from a gun enthusiast/safety organization, to a major legislative lobbying organization that became absolutist interpreters of the second amendment only after a drastic leadership change in the late 70s.

Would definitely recommend this book to anyone looking to get a comprehensive history of how American opinions on guns have evolved over time, and through what contexts these evolutions took place/what drove them.

[Lindsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is heavily focused on the case District of Columbia vs. Heller, in which the Supreme Court struck down DC's ban on handguns. While the dense legal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment may not interest every reader, the book also offers a good overview of the long history of gun control (it existed even during the Wild West period in Tombstone, AZ...it was enacted by Southern states to disarm black citizens in the post Civil War era, etc.). Additionally, the book offers an interesting history of the NRA's turn from a sports-oriented group that supported gun control to an extremist organization.

The book's main thesis is that reasonable gun control laws have and should coexist with an individual's right to bear arms. The book helped me to think about gun control in more practical terms, and it illustrated the failure of the currently emotionally charged debate to produce meaningful legislation.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a treasure trove of information.
The central element is the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller in which the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 margin that DC's handgun ban was unconstitutional and that the right to bear arms applies to the individual, rather than in relation to strictly militias. He weaves the story of how the case came about and the progression of it with the history of firearms within our country, from the revolutionary and civil wars to the wild west frontier and the black panther party.
The authors main contention is that America will never be gun free but that the Supreme Court left open in the above ruling that restrictions are constitutional and limits can be put in place. He further argues that when we look back at our history this has been the case from the very beginning, frontier towns requiring people passing thru to "check their guns" at the sheriffs office, regional laws restricting Catholics and Blacks from possessing firearms (He even states that the KKK initially started as an organization to confiscate guns from freed slaves).
It is a meaty read which requires attention at all times, but you'll be rewarded with a broad overview and small details with capture the imagination.

[Leah · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I have ever read. The argument presents both sides, has lots of historical data, the narrative style is engaging, I learned so much about all kind of issues I never even cared about before and the conclusion is concise and very quotable. My favorite from pp 294 "By making civilian disarmament impermisible, the Court's decision has the potential to restore some measure of reason to the gun debate. Extremists on both sides have obsessed over disarmament for too long. In truth, disarmament has never been a realistic option. There is no political will for it; even if there were, there are just too many guns in America and too many gun owners who would never comply with a law requiring them to turn in their guns. Guns are permanent in America, and Heller [my addition, District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case from 2008] will help all Americans, whether gun rights supporters or proponents of gun control, realize it."

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book very informative, providing me with a lot of background on the history of gun rights and gun control in this country that I was previously not aware of. It is basically a good read, although sometimes a felt it tried too hard to be "readable, " but not enough so to be annoying. This is, perhaps, too harsh a criticism for an book written by an academic that provides relevant information in readable format, but I liked this book and the information it provided enough to want the writing to be just that much better. Not sure I agree with Adam's conclusion regarding the Heller case, but I am definitely glad I read this book. It joins The Healing of America and Don't Shoot as informative books I recommend to friends interested in the topic to read.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most balanced reviews of the Second Amendment I have ever seen. I highly recommend it. I did not know this but conservative heavy weights Posner and Wilkinson have vehemently criticized Scalia's majority opinion in Heller as being as bad a Roe v. Wade. They claim that the reasoning that Scalia employed is not originalism but more akin to Brennan's living Constitution. After reading a summary of their arguments in this book, I think they have a point. Interesting how originalism might actually uphold a city-wide handgun ban because they were not commonly held by people in 1791 and therefore not used by people in their militia service. There is much more to their argument.

[Cc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Winkler makes this topic of gun control and the 2nd amendment much more engaging that you would think.. He uses one case being argued before the Supreme Court as a theme to relate the legal and political history of the 2nd amendment. This also includes the history of the NRA and how it evolved from a conversation hunting group into the political lobbying organization we know today. My one question after finishing this book: Who and how are people benefiting from all this conflict over the 2nd amendment? Is it only about the money the gun manufacture make or is there something more to drive this gap between Americans?

[Nicolas Wilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'd heard this was a reasonable presentation of both sides, but I'm rapidly finding that's not the case. Winkler has set up false equivalence between the sides by completely mis-characterizing the pro gun control side. I'd hoped for some genuine nuance to both views, but instead I'm left with the impression that Winkler has just stated what he thinks gun control advocates are saying, rather than listening to what they actually are.

[Kent Greenfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Winkler offers a definitive history of guns in America, with many surprising insights. He writes brilliantly, and he makes profound points with fascinating stories ranging from the gunfight at the OK corral, the Black Panthers, and Al Capone. Highly recommended.

[Sagar Jethani · Rating 1 out of 5]

A fairly transparent piece of pro-gun revisionism. Gun control advocates are summarily dismissed as "anti-gun nuts", while the gun lobby is broadly characterized as staunch defenders of the Constitution. Somewhere, a Regnery Press editor is kicking himself for letting this one get away.

[Pacific Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book loosly follows the D.C. vs Heller case from start to finish, interspersed with vignettes. The key thesis can be summed up as such: "Heller stands as a symbol of a truly reasonable right to bear arms in which we can have both [rights and regulation]" (p.294).

Winkler goes to great lengths to point out how "ever since the founding of America, the right to own a firearm has lived side by side with gun control" (p.295). He first emphasizes the long-standing tradition of the right to firearms not just for personal defense, but also as a resistance against tyranny dating back to the English Bill of Rights. Many colonial constitutions pre-dating the Union explicitly included similar clauses to preserving the right to bear arms. Guns were indeed commonplace, and initially they were indeed seen as both a right and a practical necessity in preserving freedom.

The author takes the middle-road, and carefully points out that this tradition was also paired with one of regulation. Early colonists were required to bring their firearms to muster and have them registered/inspected by officials. There were often exclusion criteria for owning a gun, including previous Royalists. Later on, many towns in the frontier banned firearms altogether. And of course, the more recent Federal firearms laws following Prohibition.

My eyes were opened as to the significance of the Heller decision. The Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time since the early 20th century, and essentially confirmed the individual right to firearms. There is no way that the Federal government can legally ban guns! I always knew confiscation would be impossible logistically, but I know now that it is also legally impossible. I have trouble understanding, though, if the second clause of the Second Amendment is going to be taken as the operative clause, how can you really justify banning individual machine gun ownership when the right "shall not be infringed"?

Anyway, here is an important question that doesn't get addressed in the book, is there really a "gun problem" at all? The author must be given credit in his honesty, especially when pointing out that the oft-cited "gun deaths" include suicides, which make up 50+% of all firearm fatalities. Of the remaining 15000 or so, the vast majority of gun deaths are a result of gang violence. Suicides and gang-violence are social issues that cannot be legislated away. The depressed will always find a way to off themselves, and gangs will always end up killing each other. Huge amounts of political and economic capital are poured into ineffective measures to curb gun and ammo ownership, when in reality I believe that the problem of violence itself is more fundamental.

I am sorry if I cannot be more eloquent here, the library will be closing in 15 minutes. Read the book if you want a somewhat balanced, center-left perspective on the gun debate.

[Leonard Janke · Rating 5 out of 5]

A look at the history of gun control in America and the Heller case in particular.

Although Adam Winkler has his own views on gun control he states them from the outset and presents history very objectively. So what are Winkler's views? He believes that citizens have the right to own guns as an individual right that is not restricted to those serving in state militias. The restrictive "militia theory" is a popular argument amongst liberals. Though being an opponent of the militia theory, Winkler is a supporter of gun control.

Overall the book alternates between discussing the Heller case and examining the history of gun control in the United States. Nearly everyone who reads this book will find something surprising.

Winkler spends time parsing the constitution, other writings of the Founders and the history through English common law to come to the conclusion that the second amendment applies to an individual right to own arms that is not predicated on militia service. After arguing this he then dives into the history of gun control in America.

One thing that some folks might find surprising is that there is a long history of gun control in America even in the earliest days of the Republic. Gun registration, for instance, was common in the early Republic. So too were restrictions on who could own guns. Unfortunately, the restrictions were often applied in politically and racially biased manners. There were restrictions on Loyalists owning guns after the Revolution and especially on black people owning guns post civil war with the sad result being an inability to defend themselves from lynching by Southern Democratic terror groups.

Restrictions on different type of weapons were common: handguns being a favorite target due to the ability to conceal them. Once police found out that they were often outgunned or too equally matched when facing machine guns restrictions appeared there as well. The interesting part was that laws agains machine guns were mainly used to charge folks who were suspected of other crimes but did not have good cases or to add sentences for people already charged with other crimes. Charges just for owning machine guns when there were no other crimes were rare.

Other surprising history: contrary to popular belief there was heavy gun control in the wild, wild west. Weapons typically had to be "checked at the gate" when returning from the frontier.

The history of the NRA might also be surprising. The NRA is actually much more militant today than they have been throughout most of the their history when they were strongly in favor of gun control. They originally opposed taking on the Heller case for fear the militia theory would win out. Before this the NRA had just relied on states rights.

The only small fault I can find with the book is that it should have dug deeper into the thoughts of the Founders on the intent and scope of the second amendment. Until Heller the second amendment was mostly not critical in gun cases with state laws taking precedence. Hence it is a neglected area. Winkler only takes it as far as showing that the Founder's view was not "the militia theory" and he then moves on.

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gun Fight tries to do two things - describe the Heller decision - the landmark Second Amendment case which clarified the individual right to hold guns. (as opposed to the state militia theory - which conditions the right only on membership in a militia). Here the book is excellent in showing the players and their arguments and as importantly the contradictions of the NRA in this case.

The second part of the book tries to offer a history of gun control in the US. Here Winkler is a bit off. He does a good description of the Michael A. Bellesiles discredited book but then goes on in many ways to mischaracterize gun control measures in history. Some of the history is great but I believe he understates the political nature of work during the Roosevelt DOJ - which looked at controlling guns by raising taxes.

What I did not get out of the book - and which Heller did not completely resolve - is the appropriate level of limitations which are appropriate. I believe there is general agreement that regular citizens should not be allowed to hold things like machine guns and hand grenades. But then gets confused as much as the rest of the public policy debates about what other restrictions should be allowed - and here, from my perspective there should be some variability among states and localities.

The DC law - which prohibited the effective use of hand guns and even long rifles for self defense - should have been overturned - but the decision was a 5-4 (written by Justice Scalia) and should the court be changed the decision could be reversed. This book is worth the read - especially to understand the case.