Constitutional Law

Josh Horwitz on Heller

At the Huffington Post. Horwitz is leader of one of the antigun groups (they change names so frequently I can't recall what it's named now) created by some mega-billionaire.

His theme is rejection of an "insurrectionist" purpose behind the 2A (i.e., that it was meant to provide a safeguard against tyranny). He doesn't deny the history, just doesn't like the idea because it precludes the government having a "monopoly on force." (Madison's insight was deeper than Weber's: he saw the US as composed of people, states, and the federal government. By this standard, none of the three has a true "monopoly."

What I find interesting about all repudiations of "insurrectionist purposes" is that they are left empty when it comes down to: so what WAS the Second Amendment about? It had to have purposes, right? If not enabling resistance to tyranny, aren't you left with self-defense as a purpose? But for some strange reason they don't like that idea, either.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on May 04, 2008 (boomark / email).