Constitutional Law

Nathan Kozuskanich's new article taken under fire

In Heller, both DC and some of its amici invoked an upcoming law review by Nathan Kozuskanich, who works with Saul Cornell. It's just been put online, i.e., too late for any pro-Heller amici to insert references to it. The article begins with praise for Saul Cornell's new book, and describes the DC CIrcuit ruling as relying on the "flawed and distorted version of history that Gura and his partisan amicus briefs offered." Chuckle--no doubt where this article is going!

The main theme is to try to demonstate that Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration, which guaranteed the right of citizens to bear arms for defense of themselves and the state, meant something other than an individual right. The gist of the demonstration is that at the time lots of privotal Pennsylvanians were concerned about creating a mandatory militia. OK, so what? The 1776 Constitution had references to that. There's no showing that the fact that many wanted a mandatory militia caused the right to arms clause to be inserted in the Declaration.

I won't go into detail because the article has been critiqued in depth by Clayton Cramer and by Dave Kopel. Clayton points out that the article actually cites Bellesiles!

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on March 09, 2008 (boomark / email).