This is the first scholarly study of the history of the right to bear and carry arms outside of the home, a right held dear by Americans before, during, and after the Founding period; it rebuts attempts by anti-gun advocates to rewrite history and “cancel” the Founding generation’s lived experiences bearing firearms.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, but courts in states that have extreme gun control restrictions apply tests that balance the right away. This book demonstrates that the right peaceably to carry firearms is a fundamental right recognized by the text of the Second Amendment and is part of our American history and tradition.
Halbrook’s scholarly work is an exhaustive historical treatment of the fundamental, individual right to carry firearms outside of the home. Halbrook traces this right from its origins in England through American colonial times, the American Revolution, the Constitution’s ratification debates, and then through the antebellum and post-bellum periods, including the history surrounding the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This book is another important contribution by Halbrook to the scholarship concerning the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment’s right to bear and carry arms.
Masterful blend of history and law. Halbrook is as good as ever in outlining and proving that the "bear" part of the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.
Of the history of the right to bear arms and the legislative background and jurisprudence that have governed it. A dispassionate reader would be hard pressed to not conclude that the "militia" theory is utterly invalid, and that the text, history, and tradition (and precedent) all point in only one direction, and it is sophistry to argue otherwise.
Overall an amazing book on the Second Amendment. I would suggest anybody who is remotely pro 2nd amendment (or anti for that matter) to read this book in order to understand the history of the right as a fundamentally individual one and not a supposedly "collective right."