I would like to point out what I believe is an error in "Lost and Found: Researching the Second Amendment." The article "claims the first law journal article to advocate an individual rights interpretation was not published until 1960, incorrectly reporting Emery's intepretation from the 1915 journal article cited above." (See http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#fn2 for a full explanation.)
Howard Picard --- "Robert J. Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Below is a summary table that categorizes law > journal articles on the Second Amendment that take a > position on whether the amendment describes a > collective/militia or individual right. It is based > on an examination of each article, drawn from > citations in the Index of Legal Periodicals from > 1887 to 1999 (volumes 1 through 93). It excluded > articles that took no position on the question, and > book reviews. > > Collective Individual > 1912-1959 11 0 > 1960-1969 11 3 > 1970-1979 8 6 > 1980-1989 17 21 > 1990-1999 29 58 > > Source: Robert J. Spitzer, "Lost and Found: > Researching the Second Amendment," Chicago-Kent Law > Review (76) 2000: 384. See the article for full data > and details on methodology. > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on > behalf of Guy Smith > Sent: Fri 1/18/2008 11:53 PM > To: 'Firearms Regs List' > Subject: Review of lit - statistic > > > > Some (undefined) time ago, a member of this list > presented a statistical roll-up of peer reviewed > articles that made a judgment on if the 2nd > Amendment did-or-did-not support and individual > right. As I recall he determined that the ratio was > 30:1 in favor of the individual rights theory. > > > > 1) Since the list server doesn't have a great > search engine, I cannot find that piece. Does > anyone have that post (or know of a better search > for digging into the FirearmRegProf archives)? > > 2) Has the tally been updated? > > > > I was asked by a reporter about this ratio and > wanted to back-up my memory, as well as use that > data to handicap the Heller decision (thus far I > have not found any bookmakers posting their odds on > the case). > > > > Guy Smith > > Author, Gun Facts > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.GunFacts.info <http://www.gunfacts.info/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ 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.
