Apellee's brief in Parker v. District of Columbia

[One of Many]

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. I.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Section. 10.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Article. II.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The Constitution clearly shows that the Power to create an Army and Naval Forces was granted to the Federal Government, and denied to the States, when the Constitution was ratified by the States.

The Constitution also shows that the States had pre-existing Militias, to be retained by the States and under the control of the States, except under specific circumstances, when the President would be the Commander in Chief of the Militia. Congress was granted the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, so that they would have a common structure when it became necessary to call several State's militia into Federal service. No other Troops, or Ships of War were to be under the control of the States.


That is the context that must be remembered when we read:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The initial plan for the common defense was that there would be no standing army, there would be a naval force, and there would be State controlled militia forces that could be called upon as the need arose.

That eliminated the need for taxes to support a standing army that did nothing productive, and removed the risk of a military uprising attempting to overthrow the civilian government (something the people of the time were afraid of). The militia was composed of civilians that were expected to keep their arms available and prepared for use, when it became necessary for them to be called to bear arms in defense of the State or Federal government. Notice that the Congress had the power of arming the militia; they could provide arms suitable for the military function the Militia was expected to perform. Cannon and other large weapons would be the providence of the Congress.

That does not give the Congress the power to limit the type of firearms available for use by the individuals that made up the militia; it gives the Congress the power to specify which weapons were to be used during a Militia call out to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

The State governments had control over the appointment of officers, and the training of the Militia in order to meet the specifications set forth by the Congress for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. Since the people of each state controlled their own state government via the ballot box, the people also controlled the Militia within each state.

The Second Amendment recognized that an individual right to keep and bear arms was necessary, in order for the State to exercise the powers that it held prior to the creation of the federal government, and which were recognized in the body of the Constitution. The federal government is prohibited from infringing on the right of any individual to keep and bear arms, as that would prevent the State from being able to control it's own Militia.

The Second Amendment did nothing to alter the powers of the State governments to control which persons were allowed to keep and bear arms, or to be a part of the State's Militia.

The second amendment recognizes both an individual and a collective right to keep and bears arms. The collective right is dependant on the individual right; the militia as a collective, can not exist without the individual. The individual right can exist without the collective right.

 

[RealGun]

The second amendment recognizes both an individual and a collective right to keep and bears arms. The collective right is dependant on the individual right; the militia as a collective, can not exist without the individual. The individual right can exist without the collective right.

This is all quite dogmatic. Either some references are needed or it should be clearly stated as one man's opinion.

 

[leadcounsel]

I didn't spend any time reading their arguments b/c they're just rehashing old ground.

The OBVIOUS intent of the framers is for American citizens to each individually own firearms, kept in their own homes, able to be readily assembled into a militia if there were ever a need. The FACT that the Bill of Rights grants this freedom is a CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT and foreign invaders. What sense does it make to provide the government, whom you're creating a check and balance against, critical information about armaments of citizens?

Pose this rather obvious intent with any well crafted, creative, tricky hypothetical arguments which grasp at straws and any rational person cannot side with the 'new fangled' approach.

The mere fact that it has taken creative thinking to try to figure out a different approach to defeat the obvious intent should be viewed with strict scrutiny and, frankly, fail.

Put another way, the plain langauge of the 2A is easy to understand. The antis interpretation requires creative thinking and departing oneself from the framework of the people who drafted the darn document. There is NO WAY the framers wanted all of the power in the hands of the goverment.

What "regulations" did the so called "militia" have?

Were the firearms owned by the state? No, they were privately owned.

Were the firearms stored centrally? No. They were stored in private homes.

Were the firearms serialized and ammo accounted for? Nope. It was assumed that each man owned one or more rifles.

What training was required of citizens? None. Real MEN in those days knew how to fire a rifle accurately.

So, I ask, what is this "regulation" that the antis refer to?

The only regulation I can think of is that if there ever WERE a requirement for the citizens to take up arms, they could be contacted and organized quickly with minimal training because they all knew how to shoot, the lay of the land, were in good hearty condition, etc. much different than much of the men in America today.

 

[Art Eatman]

Several times I have commented about the Preamble to the BOR, which explains the purpose of the BOR: It serves as a restraint against abuse of power by the State. Sez so, right on the Thomasville, GA, post office wall, in the facsimile reproductions of the DOI, the Big C, and the BOR.

My question has regularly been, "How can a restraint on the State simultaneously be a restraint on the individual citizen?"

None of the pro-gun lawyer types has ever responded. When I ask some mildly anti-gun or neutral type about it, the response is on the order of, "Well, it can't, can it?"

I'm just curious as to why so many seem to consider the Preamble as irrelevant...

Art

 

[Gunfire]

A well regulated Militia

Didn't "regulate" refer to economic issues rather than a rule-making meaning in the 18th century?

Hence, to acheive a well supplied militia the individual right to arms shall not be infringed.

 

[K-Romulus]

Makes some, but in the end, no sense

"A well read electorate, necessary for the efficient government of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read texts, shall not be infringed."

PLease explain how this would mean that only registered voters had the right to read books/pamphlets?

As for the "civic right" nonsense, explain why the 14th Amendment didn't extend the right to bear arms beyond the enrolled militia?
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/akhil_amar_and_1.php

And I want to know how a bunch of guys, angry that the British Govt. took away their blackpowder, would then turn around after they become "the man" and enshrine the right to do just that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident

Edited to add:
Maybe after reading the brief, I may see if there are any answers . . . .

 

[beerslurpy]

Regulated meant well trained and equipped. "Well regulated" had a military meaning as well as a general usage meaning.

The modern meaning came about over a century after the 2nd was drafted.

 

[Ieyasu]

beerslurpy wrote: "The 2nd amendment guards the means by which individuals will participate in the militia during peacetime- by possessing arms and practicing with them."

That's your opinion. The brief states their's equally assertively: "The Amendment's declaration unmistakably relates the right to arms to assurances that the militia has the means to provide security for a free State. This is a purely civic purpose; it is impossible to read it as anything else...The militia was the military counterpart to the civilian jury."

Again beerslurpy: "In peace, the militia just goes about its business as lawyers, engineers, doctors and plumbers.Requirements for training and storage may not be imposed by the state because these requirements are universally construed in such a way as to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms."

Huh? The federal government can certainly designate training requirements, and if the federal government does not, the states are allowed to do so. If cites are necessary, I'll provide them.

"The government may discipline the militia (article I), but it may not infringe upon the right to keep or bear arms, even under the color of disciplining the militia, collecting taxes or exercising any of its enumerated powers"

The anti's would agree. To them, within the context of the 2A, bearing arms meant rendering militia service, and thus, those rendering militia service could not be deprived of their arms. (There is a colorable argument that bearing arms meant rendering militia service.)

Chris Rhines wrote: The whole "civic right" argument reads like a restatement of the long-debunked "collective rights" argument. Intellectually and morally bankrupt."

Some of it is a rehash. Some of it is new. I doubt you read the brief.

One of many: "The Second Amendment did nothing to alter the powers of the State governments to control which persons were allowed to keep and bear arms, or to be a part of the State's Militia."

The brief doesn't make that claim either. However it was the federal government that controlled not necessarily which specific person could enroll in the militia, but it controlled the classes of persons that could (eg., gender, age, race, etc.). (http://guncite.com/journals/heath.html)

leadcounsel wrote: "I didn't spend any time reading their arguments b/c they're just rehashing old ground." Again, somebody didn't read the entire brief. There are some relatively new arguments in there, such as the attempt to discount St. George Tucker's commentary. And if you or anybody else has a good response to it, I'd love to hear it.

"antis interpretation requires creative thinking"
I agree.

"Put another way, the plain langauge of the 2A is easy to understand."

I wouldn't guess that, based on what some posters have written.

"Were the firearms owned by the state? No, they were privately owned."

Generally the state had to supply around 1/3 of those enrolling, with firearms.

"What training was required of citizens? None. Real MEN in those days knew how to fire a rifle accurately."

From Federalist 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. "

Art Eatman wrote:"My question has regularly been, "How can a restraint on the State simultaneously be a restraint on the individual citizen?"

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is claiming the 2A is a restraint on indvidual citizens. The anti's claim the 2A is not a barrier to gun control because the only arms that are protected by the 2A are those that are shown to have a 'relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'"

Gunfire asks: "Didn't "regulate" refer to economic issues rather than a rule-making meaning in the 18th century?"

A well regulated militia referred to one that was well-trained and disciplined, and thus properly functioning.

K-Romulus asks: "As for the "civic right" nonsense, explain why the 14th Amendment didn't extend the right to bear arms beyond the enrolled militia?"

Saul Cornell claims:
"The most important difference between the civic right and the modern collective rights argument is that I accept that the right is held by citizens, a category rather different than individuals in the Founding era, and this distinction becomes a key to understanding how the 14th changes the impact, not the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Contrary to the claims of individual rights advocates and scholars, there was considerable division over the impact of the 14th on the 2nd. Although Republicans were divided, the view that won the day for them was the civic view. The key to reconstruction became protecting the Negro militias and the right to bear arms in a government organized militia."

(I'd prefer to keep this thread limited to a 2A discussion, otherwise this thread will become too unwieldy.)

K-Romulus also notes: "A well read electorate, necessary for the efficient government of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read texts, shall not be infringed."

Well our civic-minded anti's might respond with, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep arms and render militia service shall not be infringed." As mentioned above, they claim bearing arms in the context of the 2A meant rendering militia service. (There is a colorable argument for that.)

beerslurpy wrote:" Regulated meant well trained and equipped."

When it modified a something like militia, troops or army, this was true.

"The modern meaning came about over a century after the 2nd was drafted."

Nope. From Federalist 29: "The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy...This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States... If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

 

[beerslurpy]

Ieyasu, you seem to have missed the fairly obvious point I made, that the 2nd amendment doesnt dictate any terms. A right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because it is indespensible in maintaining a militia, not as a condition of exercising the right. The right exists regardless of the reason chosen to enumerate it. The construction of the 2nd amendment is similar to many other laws passed in that time period- the first half of the sentence is never setting conditions upon the main body. This argument has been done to death.

Government authority over the militia is granted in Article 1 and 2. The right to keep and bear arms is protected for the people in amendment 2. The people's rights are not contingent upon the enumerated powers. Congress's powers to tax or regulate interstate commerce cant be used to destroy the right to free speech any more than congress can use the militia powers to destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

Your civic duty interpretation doesnt work because:
-such a thing doesnt belong in the bill of rights because it isnt a right
-congress already has the power to raise armies and support them. Why would it be necessary to grant soldiers the right to keep and bear arms? Wouldnt they automatically have it?
-congress has the authority to arm, discipline and organize the militia. This is separate from the people's right to keep and bear arms. If congress fails to exercise this authority, the right is not extinguished. Absurd.

 

[carebear]

Your civic duty interpretation doesnt work because

beerslurpy,

Keep in mind, ieyasu isn't arguing FOR this argument, he is attempting to explain it to those who don't seem to want to read the brief (or Cornell's book).

We have to understand the exact argument being used by the anti's, including their interpretations of the texts available, if we have a hope of defeating it.

If we don't take the time to read what they say and how they support it, we can't counter them in public debate and will LOSE the legal and public relations battle. When an argument rests on such precise shades of meaning as the anti's are using in this case, with such thorough cites, we have to respond in kind.

The old generalizations will no longer work, most have been coopted. It's gone far beyond such simplistic tripe as "What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?"

 

[beerslurpy]

He was responding to me, and I have read the brief.

 

[carebear]

Right, responding to you with the anti's argument(s), but not defending their position on his own behalf. If I'm understanding him correctly.

And your interplay is informative for those who haven't (and aren't going to) read it.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I don't have time right now to read Cornell's book.

I strongly suspect it's smoke, mirrors, and FUD covering a shell game.

At the end of the day, socialism is only distinguished from communism by spin, and isn't distinguishable by any substantial parameter of consequence.

I suspect that the "civic rights" model is similiarly indistinguishable from the "collective rights" model.

No matter the rationale, it all comes down to what conditions the model places on the excercise of the right of arms.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Judge Kozinski said it best - "The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed."

The DC brief is the same way as the Silveira v. Lockyear opinion.

 

[Henry Bowman]

"The other aspect of well regulated liberty that needs to be stressed is that the right only makes sense in the context of robust gun regulation.

I find this oxymoron to be particularly repugnant.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmmm, having read the brief I don't think this bears relation to the brief Kozinski criticized. This is a much better brief than earlier efforts in the Ninth Circuit and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand - especially since this is a case that could end up before SCOTUS and because DC is one of the last circuits that has yet to reaffirm either a collective or individual interpretation.

 

[ctdonath]

Too many of these arguments overlook the Militia Act of 1792, which was written by the same guys who wrote the 2nd Amendment and lays out how the individual & collective perspectives were intended to be reconciled.

The Militia Act was built on the presumption that every man be armed - to wit, it REQUIRED every able-bodied male own a minimum of one rifle, 20 rounds, and minimal supporting gear, all clearly defined. Every man had a duty to equip himself with basic standard military weapons, not just usable (muskets) but state-of-the-art (rifles). Note that having this rifle was a mandatory minimum; of course any weapon beyond that would also be desireable per the owner's personal & financial ability.

The Militia Act then required the government to organize these already-armed men into a reasonably usable force. After a man acquired his own weapons, he would then register his general whereabouts and equipment with the local gov't and report for periodic training. Of note here is that he was required to arm himself with up-to-date equipment at his own expense, he did not ask permission to do so, and he registered for "calling up" (akin to today's draft) not as a matter of gov't permission & control but as more akin to a courtesy so he could effectively provide his services to the country when needed.

Updated (as one would in a similar discussion of the 1st Amendment), this would translate to every able-bodied adult male (already militia members as defined in current law) being required to, at own cost, buy an M4 (select-fire) & 1000 rounds, would inform the gov't of availability & address, and show up for periodic training and local- & national-defense with that weapon. For its part, the gov't would provide reasonable training, and view the militia members as willing/eager participating contributors, instead of peons to be controlled & disarmed.

Historically, this did not go well because the people in general were not interested in participating in this militia system. By no means should this subsequently be interpreted as a reason to disarm the people; to the contrary, the government should be thrilled that so many today desire to equip themselves much better than the minimum defined prior. There is a limit to what the formal military & national guard can do; should those be exhausted and a draft invoked, having the rest of us show up already armed would be preferable to having draftees with little/poor/no equipment to give them.

Upshot: we already have, courtesy of those who wrote the 2nd Amendment, a thorough implementation of what was intended. Militia consists of all able-bodied adult males, self-armed with reasonable state-of-the-art weapons, registered as participants. Government organizes these members for contact, training, and call to service. Nowhere (and much to the contrary) is the government expected to disarm, limit, suppress or disuse whatever skills and equipment individuals can & choose to bring to the defense of the nation. While the National Guard system has its place, we should still have the Militia Act operating as a backup.

 

[carebear]

ct,

To a large degree that is what the "civic right" is proposing. A right to have a militia weapon in one's possession as long as one does the training (training proscribed and controlled by the gov). The Swiss model more or less.

The problem is we'd get our M4's and maybe an hour of yearly range time but there'd be no protection for our handguns or any right to carry except when performing militia duties. Heck, under the "civic right" we could have the M4 but it'd be illegal to load or even touch it unless the militia were called up. Under their model "bearing arms" means exclusively in a military situation. No right to possess personal arms of any other stripe, no right to use or carry them not under order or supervision. They specifically address handguns as "traditional weapons of officers" so only officers would be authorized possession and training with pistols.

It's the "collective right" model with a carrot.

"Sure you can have a gun if you are in the militia, but we'll define both what the militia means now and what weapon and its terms of use.

If they can push this view as "reasonable and historical" in the press and courts they can undercut us by showing the great unwashed that they aren't trying to really disarm us and that we're the ones being unreasonable and twisting history.

They'll give us a militia and steal our individual rights. That's what's a little different from the "collective" argument, instead of it being in a state armory, you (in theory) actually get to personally keep a gun.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think at least one flaw in their premise is that the current war has shown how much the military machine is dependent on the civilian firearms industry to fund development and sustain a surge ammunition capability. While the effects are indirect, there is no denying that we could not function at the same level militarily with the type of rules proposed by the antis - there would be less familiarity with firearms amongst recruits, fewer firearms makers to produce products, no surge capacity in ammunition beyond what the military planned for, etc.

These don't fit in with the Swiss concept of the militia; but they certainly affect the ability of our country to fight a war. For that matter, the civilian market also occasionally develops tactics and equipment on its own as well (Gunsite, .50 BMG rifles as long range precision rigs).

 

[beerslurpy]

Carebear, the problem is that when you are called up, it is as part of Congress' authority to raise armies. Armies are raised by drawing upon the militia. While called to active military duty, you temporarily cease to be a member of the militia. You are a soldier in the army, not a citizen in the militia. When the war ends and you are released from service, you revert to being a member of the militia again. The concept of the militia only bearing arms when called to active duty is absurd and impossible.

When congress neglects to discipline the militia, the miltia does not cease to exist (indeed it is still found in 10 USC 311), nor does it lose the right to keep and bear arms. The right persists as long as there are citizens to exercise it.

Get it? Army != Militia. They are mutually exclusive, which is why Congress' authority over each of them is expressed diferently and in separate areas. Furthmore, RKBA is completely separate from either.

I know that some of you are tired of me repeating myself, but eventually I will express it in a way that gets through to people.

 

[One of Many]

Having read the link provided by Ieyasu, it is even more obvious that the second amendment can ONLY be considered to be a personal right of the individual citizen.

My paraphrasing of the very long and complicated reading is thus:

The Consitution in Article 1 and Article 2, gave the Federal goverment complete control over the State's Militias. That control over the Militias by the US Congress has been confirmed in multiple Supreme Court cases over the past 200 years. Since the Federal Government controls the State Militias, the Second Amendment can not be limiting the Federal government in it's control of the Militia, by recognizing a right to keep and bear arms by the Militia. The only reasonable conclusion is that the right of individual citizens is recognized by the Second Amendment.

The individual citizens that are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, may be compelled to serve in the State Milita under Federal control, even against their will, and imprisoned for failure to do so. The Federal government can refuse to enroll certain individuals into the State Militia, but those citizens still have the right to keep and bear arms separate from the militia.

The states have the power to maintain a defensive force separate from the federally controlled Militia, that may not be called up as a unit by the President (police and other law enforcement) excepting the ability of the Federal goverment to conscript individuals that may be part of that state defensive force.

 

[carebear]

I understand what you're saying. I agree. I'm trying to explain, not to you, what THEY are saying.

Being right won't help us if we lose.

This case is, I think, the first time the "civic right" fallacy has been proffered as an alternative view of the 2nd in a court of law. If it isn't addressed and defeated as a justification for DC's restrictions it then enters precedent. So then we'd have umpteen "no individual right" District Court rulings, a pile of "collectivist is true" District Court rulings, now TWO Supreme court rulings that reference militia justifications (Miller generally and this one specifically) and only a couple lone District Court rulings for our side.

Each court loss we get makes our position less teneble, especially facing a future potentially hostile administration and Congress.

Losing this appeal on DC rights was just a sideshow if it came down to "the District can do what it wants", it's like losing MO all those times. We could have gone back next year with another case to get right to own (and carry) for the District.

If it turns into a legal referendum on the nature of the 2nd amendment in front of the Supremes and we lose it could be a huge blow to gun rights in general, for everyone, if it doesn't go our way.

At least that's how it is appearing to me.

 

[beerslurpy]

I agree, but I am pretty confident that the arguments we are making have occurred to the appellants. I beleive they get one more chance to respond, though I am not sure. At the least there will be oral arguments to follow.

The civic duty argument is only marginally better than the collective rights approach, and it is susceptible to all the same counterattacks.

 

[El Tejon]

A statement of purpose of a constitutional right does not limit that right. See, e.g, First Amendment.

Yet this is exactly what the neo-collectivists are attempting (just as the collectivists attempted).

The people=individuals, whether they act in concert to petition their government or come together in a militia. The right (speech or arms) still belongs to the individual.

 

[carebear]

beer (and all and sundry),

I was rereading my posts and I have to apologize for coming across so stridently. It's why I wasn't a good debater myself back in school.

I had been in the old B&N last weekend browsing around and leafed through Cornell's latest book. I even thought about posting on it until I read the full legal brief in this thread.

I guess what has me concerned is that the way the argument is being presented is so much more sophisticated on its surface than most of the collectivist claptrap I've read before. Cornell does a good job of laying out his case with lots of documentation and goes almost out of his way to address many of the arguments and citations we've always made to support our position.

I know there are a lot of gun owners who are constantly faced with having to defend their position, but, like me, don't have the most thorough or complete grounding in the small legalistic details that in the end support it. Appeals to common sense don't work when the other guy is throwing your own FF quotes back at you well-spun. Without a more sophisticated general understanding of the details I feel we might start losing the hundred and one little daily battles against anti's who have nothing better to do than digest people like Cornell's work.

Especially since they seem to be catching on that criminal and social science really doesn't support their position, history is the next big gambit. Look how long it took us to get a body of criminal statistics on our side. We need to start aggressively pushing the scholarly side of the individual rights argument sooner rather than later.