Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right [View all]jimmy the one
(2,720 posts)johnston links to a gun guru (ess): https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Violence-Joyce-Lee-Malcolm/dp/0674016084
Joyce Malcolm is a right wing pro gun author. Note other pro gun right wing authors alongside her on the amazon link - John Lott, Halbrook, Ayoob, & current far right wing fanatic nra gun moll Dana Loesch.
On amazon, you're generally known by the company you keep.
Malcolm, supposedly an english expert, was cited by scalia & the supreme court in 2008 heller. A consortium of 21 impartial British Scholars did a criticism of scalia's interpretation of british history regarding their 'have arms' decree, which foresaw the 2nd Amendment:
Where the {2008 scalia led Supreme} Court erred was by interpreting the quoted terms in a manner divorced from their historical context, reading individual to mean private, defence to mean defense against harm by private individuals acting for private purposes and equating self-preservation with the modern usage of the term self-defense. In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolms work is flawed on this point.
Amici, based on a wealth of scholarship, disagree with Malcolms conclusions. Contrary to Malcolms view, the have arms provision was the result of a political dispute over whether ultimate control over the militia the fighting force composed of qualified subjects of the realm resided with the sovereign, or in Parliament. Immediately prior to the 1662 Militia Act, Parliament, not the sovereign, held control over militia.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_RespondentAmCuEnglishHistoriansnew.authcheckdam.pdf