I think that to the extent they were relying on Second Amendment as
law binding state governments -- rather than as, say, evidence of
broader natural law principles that bound state governments because
state government power should be interpreted in light of natural law --
they were mistaken. (By the way, my sense is that the state cases were
a handful; a nontrivial number, but not a "large" one in any absolute
sense.)
Eugene
________________________________
From: Joseph E. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:06 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; List Firearms Reg
Subject: RE: The REPUBLICAN ... from New York.
OK, Barron is correct.
If so, what do we make of the large number of 19th century state
cases applying the Second Amendment against state actions and the early
commentators who, IIRC, took the view that the Second restricted both
levels of government?
>>> "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/25/07 3:40 PM >>>
By the way, here's one reason that Barron strikes me as an
entirely correct given the original understanding: *** Madison
originally proposed the Bill of Rights as amendments to the body of the
Constitution.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
