Law Commons^™

The Second Amendment: Structure, History, And Constitutional Change, David S. Yassky

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Part I of the Article engages the revisionists squarely on the turf they have staked out: the intent of those who framed and ratified the Second Amendment. Here I credit the revisionists with some important insights. Their research reminds us how greatly the world in which the Second Amendment was adopted differed from our own. This perspective helps us understand how the Founders could have placed the right to bear arms on par with the right to free speech--a decision that baffles many modern Americans. Yet while the revisionists correctly perceive that the right to keep and bear arms was …

Panelist (Symposium: The Second Amendment), David S. Yassky

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

To understand the Second Amendment and what the Founders who wrote it were trying to do, you have to understand the conceptual framework that they were working in. And that conceptual framework is based on two concepts regarding the military: the concept of the army and the concept of the militia.

The Second Amendment is about how the military power of the United States should be organized. It grew out of one of the most pretentious issues faced by the Philadelphia Convention, which was: what military power should they give this new Federal Government? They're sitting down to write the …

The Sound Of Silence: The Supreme Court And The Second Amendment - A Response To Professor Kopel, David S. Yassky

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Until now, the revisionists have based their argument entirely on claims about the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Second Amendment. Revisionists have heretofore conceded that the courts have rejected their approach; indeed, the basic structure of the revisionist argument has been: The Founders intended an individual right to firearm possession; the courts (abetted by the academy) have all but nullified the Amendment by treating it as a mere safeguard for militia; the courts should recognize their error and strike down gun control laws.

With his latest contribution, David Kopel seeks to open a second front in the …