What do you think?
Rate this book
The Second Amendment on Trial: Critical Essays on District of Columbia V. Heller
On the final day of its 2008 term, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision striking down the District of Columbia s stringent gun control laws as a violation of the Second Amendment. Reversing almost seventy years of settled precedent, the high court reinterpreted the meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms to affirm an individual right to own a gun in the home for purposes of self-defense. The landmark ruling not only opened a new chapter in the contentious history of gun rights and gun control but also revealed both the strengths and problems of originalist constitutional theory and jurisprudence.
This volume brings together some of the best scholarship on the Heller case, with essays by legal scholars and historians representing a range of ideological viewpoints and applying different interpretive frameworks. Following the editors introduction, which describes the issues involved and the arguments on each side, the essays are organized into four sections. The first includes two of the most important historical briefs filed in the case, while the second offers different views of the role of originalist theory. Section three presents opposing interpretations of the ruling and its relationship to modern constitutional doctrine. The final section explores historical research post-Heller, including new findings on patterns of gun ownership in colonial and Revolutionary America.
In addition to the editors, contributors include Nelson Lund, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Jack Rakove, Reva B. Siegel, Cass R. Sunstein, Kevin M. Sweeney, and J. Harvie Wilkinson III.
This volume brings together some of the best scholarship on the Heller case, with essays by legal scholars and historians representing a range of ideological viewpoints and applying different interpretive frameworks. Following the editors introduction, which describes the issues involved and the arguments on each side, the essays are organized into four sections. The first includes two of the most important historical briefs filed in the case, while the second offers different views of the role of originalist theory. Section three presents opposing interpretations of the ruling and its relationship to modern constitutional doctrine. The final section explores historical research post-Heller, including new findings on patterns of gun ownership in colonial and Revolutionary America.
In addition to the editors, contributors include Nelson Lund, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Jack Rakove, Reva B. Siegel, Cass R. Sunstein, Kevin M. Sweeney, and J. Harvie Wilkinson III.
376 pages, Hardcover
First published August 31, 2013
1 person is currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 7, 2018
Not very good.
This book is a virtual gun control op-ed, not very good.
This book is a virtual gun control op-ed, not very good.
November 4, 2014
Gun control in the United States has to be the most controversial issue we face. It now outranks even abortion in the number of organizations coming out in favor of or against. The Supreme Court's Heller decision, striking down the District of Columbia's very strict gun control laws, is not remembered for ruling against a extreme example of gun control, but for Justice Scalia's Opinion that declared that the Second Amendment guaranteed a personal right to have guns.
This book deals with that controversy. It's not light reading; my copy came inter library loan from a law school. It's harder reading if you don't have at least a little knowledge of the legal system and prior case decisions. But you can get through it.
This is also not a book that simply comes down on one side or the other and puts down the opposite viewpoint. It is a series of legal articles that examine the decision and what it will mean down the line. Almost entirely, the writers come out against Justice Scalia's opinion, not because it is wrong as such, but because of its proclaimed basis in historical antecedent. Both briefs are presented so that readers can see what was originally argued on each side also.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that individuals in the US do not have a right to own guns. But I guess that's because I was raised to believe in the restraints on government and the rationality of my fellow human beings. So the intense debate over the issue to me at times is totally exasperating. Of COURSE people are allowed to own guns, and of COURSE some form of regulation is allowed as well. Neither of these has any basis in the Second Amendment.
And that is pretty much the consensus against Scalia's opinion. Not one writer disagrees that the Court had the right to strike down DC's extreme law, but none of them believe that the arguments in support of that decision are actually relevant. Some simply show alternative arguments; some show how the reasoning isn't sound; some show how the historical reasoning behind the Second doesn't support the interpretation given.
So whether you supported or didn't the Heller decision (and you are reasonably "fluent" in "legalese") this is a good book to read to get a handle on the case.
This book deals with that controversy. It's not light reading; my copy came inter library loan from a law school. It's harder reading if you don't have at least a little knowledge of the legal system and prior case decisions. But you can get through it.
This is also not a book that simply comes down on one side or the other and puts down the opposite viewpoint. It is a series of legal articles that examine the decision and what it will mean down the line. Almost entirely, the writers come out against Justice Scalia's opinion, not because it is wrong as such, but because of its proclaimed basis in historical antecedent. Both briefs are presented so that readers can see what was originally argued on each side also.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that individuals in the US do not have a right to own guns. But I guess that's because I was raised to believe in the restraints on government and the rationality of my fellow human beings. So the intense debate over the issue to me at times is totally exasperating. Of COURSE people are allowed to own guns, and of COURSE some form of regulation is allowed as well. Neither of these has any basis in the Second Amendment.
And that is pretty much the consensus against Scalia's opinion. Not one writer disagrees that the Court had the right to strike down DC's extreme law, but none of them believe that the arguments in support of that decision are actually relevant. Some simply show alternative arguments; some show how the reasoning isn't sound; some show how the historical reasoning behind the Second doesn't support the interpretation given.
So whether you supported or didn't the Heller decision (and you are reasonably "fluent" in "legalese") this is a good book to read to get a handle on the case.
December 19, 2018
Not for the casual reader! Dense articles mostly focused on constitutional interpretation, particularly originalism. Not much new or concrete in terms of actual gun law developments after Heller. Too dense to assign any of the chapters to my non-law students, which is what I had hoped to find.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews