Academics for the Second Amendment

[jpr9954]

This is a group of law professors, historians, and other academics who support the Second Amendment as an individual right. Given that the DC Circuit Court made lots of references to the firearms history in early America, these folks should be able to provide even more valuable support for our side. They are also seeking donations to support their brief to the Supreme Court. As they are a 501c3 non-profit, contributions are tax deductible.

John


Their info is below:

Academics for the Second Amendment
Post Office Box 131254
St. Paul, Minn. 55113
http://AcademicsSecondAmendment.blogspot.com


Academics for the Second Amendment ("A2A") will be filing an amicus brief in the US Supreme Court in support of Mr. Heller (and urging the Supreme Court to affirm the Court of Appeals decision that the DC gun laws are unconstitutional). Our brief will be written by attorneys David Hardy and Joseph Olson with historical assistance from Clayton Cramer. As one of the several pro-gun amici, we'll be taking an approach that focuses on the ratification process in 1791 and the meaning and usage of terms found in the Second Amendment. We will show that no one in America, at that time, could have understood the amendment to preserve a state or government organization's "right" and that everyone who did speak out did so in the context of a meaningful individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Megistopoda]

Donation sent.

These guys are the real McCoy and could bring some of the most important historical aspects of the ratification to bear on this case.

They deserve our support...they've earned it.

 

[JohnL2]

Wish folks like this were more vocal. At least now I know they are out there and getting organized. Good to see.

 

[afu]

Agreed. But recognizing the individual's right to protect themselves with guns owned by individuals is pretty much a career ending event unless you are under tenure. That's why so few speak up. There are more of them out there. They are helping in other ways.

 

[F4GIB]

More information here on THR at
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3913436#post3913436

And on the A2A webpage at
http://AcademicsSecondAmendment.blogspot.com

 

[tabsr]

Donation Stickey

This thread should be a stickey and encourage donations.

 

[F4GIB]

A2A's 33 page amicus brief written by Professor Joe Olson, Lawyer David Hardy, and Historian Clayton Cramer is at the printer. It gets filed on Monday.
They are still short of meeting their budget. See their web page (posted above).

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

intersting group of people and professors. In my constitutional law classes they talked about pretty much every amendment except the second. They purposely avoided it for some reason.

 

[ServiceSoon]

In my constitutional law classes they talked about pretty much every amendment except the second. They purposely avoided it for some reason.

IMO this is very bad. What can you do to stop that behavior?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

IMO this is very bad. What can you do to stop that behavior?

I think the main reason the subject isn't discussed much in Constitutional Law classes is that there just has not been much there to discuss in the past. One of the standard Constitutional Law textbooks (the one written by the Dean of Stanford Law) doesn't even mention the Second Amendment. Until 2001, there wasn't even a circuit split.

Since Constitutional law is all Supreme Court cases, what would you discuss? If you limit it to direct Second Amendment cases, you've basically got Miller and maybe Cruikshank. I think some law schools are coming around on that now that there is all the academic discussion of the Second Amendment; but by and large there is already so much stuff to cover in Constitutional Law that huge chunks of stuff get skipped (for example, I know a top tier law school that doesn't cover free speech in their Constitutional Law course on the basis that they don't have time and there is a separate class on that subject).

 

[pernicus]

I just cant understand what is so difficult to understand or up for misinterpretation of "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[Deavis]

I just cant understand what is so difficult to understand or up for misinterpretation of "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

That is why you aren't a lawyer, eh?

David Hardy is a memeber of the group and they are filing a brief (at the printers now). I donated because I think highly of Hardy. He runs a nice blog and his documentary was well done. I told him I was using my copy to loan out to people in my office to get them informed on the 2A and he sent me an extra one for free. That DVD has made its rounds and he obviously believes in spreading the cause at least as much as he likes making back his investment. Can't fault him on that!