The Second Amendment: A Biography

Finally a book which deconstructs the lies of the NRA. It is worth the read for people like myself who want to see the reformation of gun laws to protect our citizens from an Afghanistan-like scenario of potential sudden, random and spontaneous death and the annihilation of supposed "Constitutionalist" groups.

After 150 years the Federalist Society reinterpreted the founding fathers while telling us to adhere to the founding fathers. It took America 60 years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. It took the NRA 40 years to rewrite the 2nd amendment. Dedicated citizens need to start working to get the Court to really interpret the Constitution as the founders intended if only for the sake of our grandchildren.and before the gun lobby figures out how to produce inexpensive missle launchers with low yield nuclear devices that are necessary for killing whitetail deer.

Though occasionally lost in the legal details, overall I enjoyed this popular description of the amendment's history. It helps me understand how we arrived at the current state of debate. It also makes a strong case for a living originalism in interpreting the US Constitution. I recommend this book to anyone wanting to, or claiming to, know the basics of our country's constitutional history.

This book purchase of mine was precipitated by hearing the author on NPR. The book opens up my understanding of the reason and meaning of the 2nd Amendment and explains how the politicization of the amendment in the late 1960's changed it's meaning.

Great history lesson on the second amendment, and reasonably balanced - not taking sides. Everyone interested in the gun control debate should read this to better understand what is involved. It might surprise a lot of people.

Author challenges our thinking about the Second Amendment- a debate that has raged since our founding father's time. How do we balance individual's right to own a gun and the need for public safety? Of course, no one questions the need for firearms fighting the Revolution. The Founders would have no free state without arms to secure it from British tyranny. Then, Shay's Rebellion taught us to consider another extreme. What happens when angry mobs have guns and start armed revolts? The uses and misuses of guns is clear.

The author finishes the book with bitter criticism about the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Heller vs Washington DC case. He relies primarily on snide remarks to make his case. This part of the book is tiresome to read. I was glad it was over.

Despite what some reviewers here would like you to believe: The Second Amendment is hardly settled law. In fact, the Heller and McDonald decisions unsettled what had been an unanimous interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The US v. Miller decision was described by Justice William O. Douglas, who had been on the Court at the time of Miller, in his dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) as:

"The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia.""

When the Heller court reinterpreted the Second Amendment to allow for the possession of registered firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defence, the decision was not unanimous, but went 5-4. Justice Douglas's successor, Justice Stevens did not find merit in the majority decision:

"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a "law-abiding, responsible citize[n]" the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is "off the table." Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

I do not know whether today's decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the "breaking point" envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.

The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice--the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court's opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

There are the opinion of two of the longest seated, and scholarly respected, Justices.

Even Justice Alito was party to a decision which found:

"Rybar boldly asserts that "the Miller Court was quite simply wrong in its superficial (and one-sided) analysis of the Second Amendment." Brief of Appellant at 27. As one of the inferior federal courts subject to the Supreme Court's precedents, we have neither the license nor the inclination to engage in such freewheeling presumptuousness. In any event, this court has on several occasions emphasized that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms." US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996).

Even if you accept the revised interpretation of the Second Amendment that comes from the Heller and McDonald decision, that right is an extremely limited one as Justice Scalia pointed out in Heller:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. "

Justice Scalia pointed out that list of Constitutionally acceptable prohibitions on the newly created Second Amendment right was not exhaustive

While the detractors of this book may call me names, or otherwise attempt discredit this review in their sophomoric manner, I am citing sources which are respected in the legal community that you can look up for yourself. Additionally, I am providing actual constitutionally valid legal authorities on this matter.

I find it interesting that very few people mention Congress' power over the militia found in Article I, Section 8, clause 16 when discussing this topic, or place it within context. This is the clause in the US Constitution which says Congress has the power:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The fact that the power to arm the militia was given to congress was of deep concern at the time of the Constitution's ratification, which one will find if they are willing to look at the primary source materials. Mr. Waldman makes a very good show of the actual scope and meaning of the Constitutional debates. The real issue here is the ability to have a non-professional defence force rather than a standing army.

Likewise, this book provides evidence that the current trend of discounting the "well-regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment is wrong. Those people who would say this is a misreading of history provide examples such as the Dred Scott decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), which addressed the right of a runaway slave and was not a case that addressed the Second Amendment.

The silliest argument for a private right to arms is that it is to wage war against the US government. That goes against Article III, Section iii of the Constitution which specifically prohibits such an act. In no way does the Second Amendment explicitly cancel out Article III, Section iii. It is odd that people who claim to be "constitutionalists", or that they are somehow "defending the constitution" are blissfully ignorant of that section of the document they claim to support.

We also see the facially ridiculous attempt to use 10 USC § 311 use of the term "unorganised militia", which is a reserve body used to built up troop strength should the militia fail to reach its required manpower. The term "unorganised" should make any thinking person pause about its relationship to active duty since Sedentary, reserve, inactive, unorganised, general (or other term indicating INACTIVITY) Militia is exactly what it says it is--a draft pool used to supplement the organised militia.

You can see the implementation of this term in state calling out provisions such as Ma.Gen.Laws § 33-3 Organized and Unorganized Militia:

"Section 3. The militia shall consist of two classes, namely, the organized militia, composed and organized as provided in this chapter, and the remainder, to be known as the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall not be subject to duty except in case of war, actual or threatened, invasion, the prevention of invasion, the suppression of riots, and the assisting of civil officers in the execution of the laws."

The arguments against this book are the usual "pro-gun" ones that take the quotes out of context. Worse, they attempt to make people believe that quotes can trump article VI of the US Constitution, which says:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

I would also add that the use of "liberal" in their reviews as an attempt to somehow colour the validity of the Scholarship or interpretation of the material given by Mr. Waldman should point to the fact that their arguments are weak. They must rely on emotion rather than solid facts.

Of course, the ultimate interpretation needs to be made by looking at the material and making up your mind in an informed manner. The best way to do that would be to cite check the quotations used by the people who have given this one star and see them in context.

Failing that, Mr. Waldman's book is a good choice for where to begin in learning what the meaning of the Second Amendment and how it relates to the Constitution's stated purposes of "insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare".

The reviews of Michael Waldman's book are almost equally divided between those who agree with his arguments and those who are opposed. But one might also be appalled by his carelessness with the English language. I'm only up to page 100 and have already noticed:
1) p77: "it would not be another fifty years before the Supreme Court started to incorporate --- " this might make sense without the "not" - with it, I'm not sure what the meaning is;
2) p83: "Its analysis of what kind of weapon could not banned did not, notably, say that the weapon ---- " - garbled at best;
3) p84: "As crime policy - even gun laws - were debated --- " verb tense
4) p89: "When lawmakers trifled with it, the gun lobby showed it could retaliate ---" what is "it"?
5) p92: "As the rights language of the social movements of the 1960s began to permeate society, conservatives began to adopt them." is "them" the language? correct tense?

I wouldn't normally pick at minor things but this sloppy language really is pervasive.

A detailed history of the Second Amendment explaining the origins, language, drafters' intent, and subsequent interpretations by citizens and the Supreme Court. One of the more amazing sections of this history is an exposition of Scalia's tortured reasoning in drafting the Supreme Court majority opinion in Heller giving individuals the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Also fascinating is the NRA misquoting of the Second Amendment immortalized on their headquarters wall. A must read for people who want to know where we are now with regard to gun rights and where we seem to be headed.

solid reading. i find it curious that the majority of the the one star reviews are reposts by the same reviewer, merely changing the title. same long negative review, designed to bring down the book's overall rating. why would someone feel the need to do that?

The premise of the book is that our Founding Fathers viewed guns and militias as bound together. The Second Amendment supported the individual States having armed militias. The fear of a despotic monarch using a standing army to control the people was very strong in youthful America. Therefore citizen militias existed to protect against tyranny of leaders and other exigencies. The arguments made will make those who support forms of gun control happy and will do nothing for those who oppose any and all forms of gun control. The irony seems to be that America has had many forms of gun and other weapon control legislation. I am a member of the choir so I recommend the book. To the other side, I hope for some converts.

I found Michael Waldman's scribe thought provoking and insightful concerning our Constitution's Second Amendment. The civic duty required by the white population following the Revolutionary War is not what modern day folk would consider civic duty. No it's not about jury duty. It is about belonging to a state militia.
His book explores the ways our Constitution is interpreted. The right way is what is questionable. I will re-read this book, it is indispensable to understanding why there is a division of opinion on this subject.

This book is competently written and researched, but it's severely mistaken to call it an impartial treatment of the issue. It's a heavy-handed treatment of American history and jurisprudence, written from a partisan perspective. (From, incidentally, someone who lives and works in New York City, under the aegis of the "Brennan Center for Justice"--the namesake of one of the most liberal justices of the 20th century.) The Scalia *majority* opinion in *Heller* is caricatured in about three pages. Before we buy Waldman's argument that opinion was hopelessly flawed, let's pause to notice that it commanded five votes from the Court. His view commanded four. For this reason alone, I'd recommend anyone interested actually read Scalia's opinion, rather than Waldman's caricature of it. Then read the Breyer and Stevens dissents--both of which are provocative and honestly reasoned. But this book often just reads as impassioned whining from the losing side--as much of public politics is right now--and the objectivity of the book is clearly called into question by Waldman's partisan treatment. Again, the book is fine if you know what you're getting yourself into--and it really was a good read--but if you want to know the current state of play, the Court's writings are just going to be more balanced and complete.

This 2014 book tells well the history of the Second Amendment, which provides "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." For nigh unto 200 years this amendment was not deemed to give an individual any right except as a part of the militia. But the NRA and the gun manufacturers have managed to turn it into a pro-gun possession vehicle--culminating in 2008 in the 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 which simply ignores the first 13 words of the Amendment and makes meaningful gun regulation much more difficult, to the delight of gun wielders and the dismay of persons opposed to everybody, regardless of mental condition, having limitless gun usage.

An excellent introduction to the issue by someone who does not write tendentiously about the subject: clear, concise, well-reasoned, and presented in brisk, lively prose. Those in this forum who are recommending books solely about the origins of the bill of rights miss the point--the book provides the historical context and evolution of two centuries of legal thinking surrounding the 2nd Amendment, culminating in the Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision. Those who are recommending books written in the nineties ignore a wave of research that happened subsequent to their publication, particularly the work of Saul Cornell in his "A Well-Regulated Militia (2006). It would be hard to find a fairer presentation of the ideas and history behind the 2nd Amendment than Waldman's work.

Unlike some "reviewers," I actually own a copy of this book and have read it. I also have the advantage of extensive higher education, culminating in a doctoral degree, therefore I am familiar with critical reading and analysis.

Mr. Waldman -- an eminent attorney, expert in Constitutional law, and president of the renowned Brennan Center for Justice of the NYU School of law -- explains the reason for the existence of the Second Amendment; the intent of the historical figures who composed its language, gained by review of a multitude of supportive documents written by those same individuals during the development of the Bill of Rights; and the historical background against which this Amendment was created. All are supported by solid references to legal and academic documents.

Mr. Waldman goes on to discuss recent legal and social developments in light of this Amendment. At times he might be felt to venture into areas that suggest his personal beliefs, beyond the discussion of Constitutional law. This need not distract the astute reader from the enormous body of well-researched, knowledgeable, and insightful material explaining the history of the Second Amendment, the intent of those who wrote it, and its applicability to 21st century America.

Like the Amendment itself, this text will engender controversy, and draw both supporters and detractors across the political spectrum. It will particularly confuse and disturb those who robotically utter the words "right to keep and bear arms" without reference to the preceding phrase that states that right is due to the need to maintain "a well-regulated militia," intended to protect the states from Federal overreach during perilous times when the states first joined to form this nation.

This work should enlighten those who choose to read with an open mind. As with many such hot-button issues, however, it will draw meaningless "review"s from those who neither purchase nor read the book, but claim to understand both it and the Constitution although merely use this forum as yet another platform to voice their emotionally-charged opinions.

A highly readable summary of this historic background on the Second Amendment as well as the recent court cases. The book seems slightly tilted to the left, but does not lose its character as a fair narrator of the background of this controversial amendment. The book provides an excellent starting point to anyone who wishes to delve further into the topic.

In spite of being a former speechwriter to Bill Clinton and clearly a strong Democrat, Waldman takes a balanced look at the history of the Second Amendment, which has polarized the country. He reviews evidence of what the Founders thought and describes the changes of thinking on this amendment over the last two centuries. Well worth the read if you want to look at a broad view of the subject rather than just one of the polarzied sides.

The book comes off with an almost instant one sided viewpoint, which I was not expecting. The author’s bias was evident immediately; it made the book hard to read at times as you weren’t sure if he was presenting fact or opinion at times. The book should be labeled an op-ed piece and not a biography. A very counter-productive book to bring to the arguments in regards to how the 2nd amendment is to be interpreted.

The best part of the book was his breakdown of the Supreme Court’s oft blowing with the wind ways that really showed just how subjective all parts of the Constitution are to interpretation. The author’s knowledge of legal histories was very evident and kept this from being a 3-start rating.

A fascinating, well-researched, extensively annotated and most readable book. Waldman takes us from a time before the Constitution was written through the sometimes messy process of forming a union, the writing and adoption of the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights, the concerns of the various colonies, the role of colonial militias and basis for the colonials' fear of a national army. The lively, informative narrative touches on a variety of social, economic and political issues at various times in our history and Supreme Court and lower court decisions throughout our history are discussed. This historical context is invaluable to developing an understanding of the role of guns and the seeking of a balance of gun rights and gun control throughout US history. Overall, a highly informative piece of work - really a survey of the formation of the USA and American constitutional history with a focus on the Second Amendment - which while scholarly and well-researched is most accessible to the layman.

Waldman has written what should be required reading for Constitutional scholars and any American citizen interested in learning the founders' intent in writing the Second Amendment. On a near daily basis we see and hear the United States Bill of Rights get twisted into political statements which, while quite effective, are completely inaccurate. Looking to historical documents we learn that the founding fathers of our country created the Second Amendment to the Constitution to protect state militias. The founding fathers never intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to gun ownership.The Second Amendment was written to ensure that state militias could act jointly with the United States Army to form a military system charged with protecting the newly founded United States of America against threats to our burgeoning democracy.

The historical portion was better than the interpretation section, but I never felt like I was getting a history lesson. The author skewed the usage of the word militia and ignored the works of George Mason.

As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I found the book illuminating, well researched and logically presented. Sadly most Americans have been bamboozled by extremists with no historical perspective on the 2nd Amendment. When the 2nd Amendment was debated before passage unlimited access to arms for personal self defense, hunting or use against our own government was not even mentioned. It simply guaranteed access to arms for national defense during an era when we did not have a national army. Our right to bears arms as individuals comes from English Common Law.

The distortions and omissions of facts are numerous and it becomes obvious the farther you get into the book that the author is a student of progressive ideology. If the sub title were changed to reflect the politically left spin put on the "biography", I would give it a higher rating because he at least would have been honest about his bias.

An exemplary examination of the amendment forever distorted by Scalia and a complicit court. My, how they love to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part -- if carried to logical end, it would mean PLENTY of regulation and government control over the gun loving loons and gun and ammo manufacturers who are elevating obsession and profit over safety and security for the majority of Americans.

The debate focusing on gun control regulations often reverts to emotional appeals and observations by those on either side of the issue. What the debate often lacks in the historical context for the debate. Just how should the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be viewed? Michael Waldman in his The Second Amendment: A Biography provides just that: the historical context.

Written in three parts, the author begins with a look at the post Revolutionary War period in which the formulation of the Constitution was achieved, soon followed by the Bill of Rights within which is found the Second Amendment.

The second portion of the book discusses how the precedent set by the Founders in their deliberations surrounding the Second Amendment was upended in 2008. The author’s lengthy discussion of the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, before the Supreme Court explores the notion of the Founder’s original intent. Here, the important role of the National Rifle Association is made clear. The honorable Justice Antonin Scalia is charged with providing the words for the majority in the case.

Finally, the last portion of the book looks at the impact of the Heller decision on the gun rights issue today. With the massacre at Newtown Connecticut as a focal point, the author explores what groups on either side of the arms debate are faced with.

For anyone on either side of the gun rights advocacy issue, The Second Amendment: A Biography is a must read. Michael Waldman has provided a “public service” in bringing context to a contentious issue.

As an instructor of US History at various universities (including the History of US Constitutional Law) I am thrilled with the arrival of this book. Not only is it needed but it is nice to have virtually all of the relevant material on this subject in one volume! I note how many negative comments there are here - not as many as I would suppose. Maybe the NRA isn't paying trasher-trolls enough these days?

Excellent and readable historical story of the 2nd Amendment and the men and times from whence it came.. While I draw different conclusions from the data than that of the author, I find his evenhanded approach refreshing and consistent with my idea of scholarly work. It is easy to write opinions but difficult to present information in a balanced and still enjoyable manner to the nonhistorian.Dr. Waldman has done an excellent job. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the issues involved. Charles RB Beckmann, MD, BA-ELit, MHPE, FACOG

This is a must read - Waldman highlights the change in our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. His expert grasp of the laws and of the historical context makes reading and comprehending the complexity of the issue easy for the layperson. It was very informative - didn't know the NRA edited the 2nd Amendment to suit their purposes.
The most often misunderstood part of the 2nd Amendment, as short as it is, is the meaning of "well-regulated militia." The place to start in understanding what they meant by that, is to be found in the 1st and 2nd Articles of the Constitution itself. Art I Sect 8 gives Congress the power:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Art II Sect 2 says that
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
In other words, the Militias were considered part of the police powers of the Government, not an antidote to it. The boneheads who think that the Militias were established so that a minority can resort to violence when they don't like the results of an election, are the real tyrants here.
There are two items in the current discussion which I believe are inexcusable: the lack of accountablility for irresponsible ownership and handling of weapons of any kind; and the blatant disregard for the purpose statement presented in the Letter of Transmittal that accompanied the Bill of Rights to be ratified with the US Constitution. Citizens are held accountable for irresponsibly mishandling everything with lethal consequences except weapons. As to the rights protected by the Consitution, there is a statement in the Letter of Transmittal that accompanied and introduced the Bill of Rights for ratification which stated succinctly and definitively what the founding Congress had in mind. I quote the complete second paragraph: "It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests." The level of literacy required here is pretty demanding, but what do we think "individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest" means?

Michael Waldman's book The Second Amendment: A Biography is about Second Amendment history from the gun control advocate perspective. This author's central purpose is to attack the Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia, and question the historical foundation of its individual rights protecting decision. The author argues that, rather than individual rights, the Second Amendment was passed to protect state militia powers. Waldman blames National Rifle Association funded research and a shift in public opinion for pressuring federal courts into an individual rights ruling.
There are fundamental problems with this book, and historical errors and internal contradictions abound. Waldman views the state militia protecting nature of the Second Amendment as crystal clear. However, this conflicts with numerous assertions of the Second Amendment's utter ambiguity, no doubt designed to cloud the rather clear “right of the people” language- "foggy wording", "odd locution", "is so inscrutable", etc. His emphasis on the impossibility of understanding the Amendment's language flows into reviews of the book.Waldman's ambiguity campaign and his admission of not knowing why Madison's version was phrased as it was, result in this question - why would anyone read this book to find out about Second Amendment history and intent?
Treatment of Vermont's 1777 Declaration of Rights 'people have a right to bear arms' provision by Waldman is schizophrenic, the result of adamant refusal to accept its private rights protecting nature. His argument on the number of right to arms provisions is in error unless Vermont is included. He treats Vermont as a state in his text, then criticizes Justice Scalia's Heller decision in a note for mention of Vermont because it was "a separate republic". Yet, in that note, he refers to Vermont's declaration of rights as that “state's” charter. Justice Scalia's Heller decision and Justice Stevens' dissent both quote Vermont's right to bear arms provision, treat it as significant, recognize it as protecting individual rights, and use it in their argument. Scalia is rebuked, while, conversely, only praise is heaped on Justice Stevens' "powerfully set[ting] out the historic record". Agenda driven spin is apparent throughout this book.
Waldman's fundamental error is constant conflation of the Second Amendment and its predecessors with unrelated militia powers amendment history and intent. He quotes George Mason in the Virginia Ratifying Convention discussing a militia powers amendment, but leaves off the amendment Mason specified, substituting in its place the entirely unrelated bill of rights predecessor. This conflation of the Second Amendment predecessor with militia powers amendment history and intent demonstrates the unfounded nature of Waldmans' beliefs. The author quotes some of the essential period sources but always misinterprets them due to this error.
Entirely ignored in this book is the extensive Bill of Rights historical foundation of the Heller decision presented in briefs and cited by the court. He also ignores the existence of the Parker decision, appealed to the Supreme Court as the Heller case. Parker cited extensive historical evidence from the Fifth Circuit's Emerson decision, which Waldman only mentions in passing as an individual rights ruling. The reason for individual rights rulings commencing with U.S. v Emerson is it was the first case where the full Bill of Rights history of the Second Amendment was ever cited to any federal court.
Waldman's historical argument essentially follows that in Justice Stevens' dissent, which follows the assertions of professional historians in their Heller case brief. Advocates of gun control will like The Second Amendment: A Biography, and it will be useful for someone studying typical gun control advocate views about the Second Amendment. However, it will also be uncritically accepted as historically accurate by many, who will be misled into accepting the author's unfounded belief system. Waldman's stated purpose is to support a "new history-driven regime" where professional historians and law scholars are paid handsomely to advance his 'clear' understanding of the Second Amendment. In other words, Waldman wants to brainwash the people and the courts into accepting his completely erroneous view of our history relying on the assertions of credentialed 'experts'.
In stark contrast to Waldman's confused historical work, there are sources that document every detail of the Second Amendment's development. Those in search of reality-based history should consider sources relied on by the federal courts as well as Alan Gura, the attorney who won the Heller/Parker cases. There are two books that he recommends as “the authoritative books on the subject” of Second Amendment history linked below.
David E. Young
http://www.the store.com/gp/offer-listing/0962366471/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
http://www.the store.com/gp/offer-listing/0962366439/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

The author gives a half-hearted attempt to create a revisionist view of the 2nd Amendment and often meanders into hyperbole on apparent lack of research. Some gaps in detail of historic legal events such the Heller decision are to the point of being ludicrous. I really question if the author was truly unbiased in this publication or had some axe to grind. Mediocre at best.

This book really should have been named: A case against the Second Amendment. If you want a one-sided, anti-conservative political rant masked in legal terminolgy this is your book. Much of the middle of the book is filler not really discussing the topic at all but preaching liberal legal talking points. I am shocked but not really in the rather illiberal trains of thought here and the general neglect of telling both sides of the story. Many times I felt like juror in a trial being preached to by a lawyer trying to get guilty client out of jail.

Waldman has verified what any educated and literate person can logically conclude. That gun ownership was to be in the context of a "militia". It is interesting that the NRA never cites the first part of the 2nd Amendment. They do not want anything that would curtail the money and power going to gun manufactures and munition industries. I predict that in a very short time, the majority view of the public will be represented again in the halls of government and we will return to a sane and civilized role for guns in our society.

Anti-gunners have always based their anti-gun laws on the "militia" verbiage of the Second Amendment. That is, if you are not a member of a "militia", you did NOT have an individual right to own or bear arms, despite the rest of the wording of the 2nd Amendment. The Catch-22 being that they, the liberals, could define what a "militia" IS or IS NOT.

They then define "militia" as a group of armed citizens whose chain of command ends with a government official. At the county level, a "militia" would be a Sheriffs Posse. Here in Georgia, we have the "Georgia Defense Force" whose chain of command ends with the Governor of Georgia.

The liberals such as the author would then disallow the formation of such a militia in the first place, thereby denying you you right to bear arms.

The "militia" argument was overturned by the Supreme Court decision in the "Heller" case, which in effect destroys liberal attempts at gun control by staing that the "keep arms" language of the 2nd Amendment is what controls; NOT the "militia" language.

This entire book is a lame attempt to resurrect the "militia" argument by insisting the Founding Fathers who wrote it really meant it that way.

This book is just going to be used in future attempts to overturn the "Heller" decision, reinstate the "militia" argument as the basis for the continuation of anti-gun laws, with the ultimate goal, as always, to disarm we uppity peasants so good liberal elitists like the author may rule over us without our consent.

Do not waste your money. Do expect it to be quoted in future anti gun legislation attempts and lawsuits.

The Second Amendment

Michael Waldman is president of the “Brennan Center for Justice” at New York University School of Law. Michael Waldman is “former Director of Speechwriting for President Bill Clinton from 1995 1999”. Is that a politically neutral background? Who owns this organization? Isn’t it a lobby? Who elects its president? Waldman criticizes “Hallbrook, Don Kates, David Hardy” for taking money to fund their studies (p.98). Yet he does not mention the amounts received by the “Brennan Center for Justice”, a fancy name for a political lobby! The meaning of the Second Amendment was well known before the 1960s: people had a right to keep and bear arms and exercised that right everyday. The idea that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says was invented around 1966 by a hack writer or “Advertising Executive” named Carl Bakal. Until 1935 there were no Federal Gun Laws (even after 1877 when Big Corporations attacked popular militias to replace them with a National Guard controlled by the state governor). The local militias were democratic, the members elected their officers to a one year term. Big Corporations wanted an armed force that would attack striking workers. This history is censored from most school books, you have to search for these books. Waldman seems to be like another historian (like Bellesiles) whose attacked the rights of the people by inventing a “biography”.

Before the 20th century the local or county militia existed and provided the forces to defend their communities. The 1877 strike in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania presented a problem for corporate owners. Calling out the militia would include the striking workers, their relatives and friends. The solution was to use a State National Guard then begin eliminating the traditional democratic militia. Local militias were controlled by their members. The citizens did not reject this system, it was taken from them by stronger powers. This book is not (yet) in my county Public Library system, but a review in a local newspaper told me what I need to know. Waldman attacks Joyce Malcolm (George Mason), Sanford Levinson (University of Texas), Akhil Reed Amar (Yale), and Laurence Tribe (Harvard). No mention of Leonard Levy’s book “The Origins of the Bill of Rights”. Is everyone wrong who disagrees with him, even if they have better credentials as scholars? Why is the Ninth Amendment ignored?

Bellesiles wrote a Bancroft Prize winning book, but this was voided and this tenured professor was fired afterwards! Who paid for it and its selection as the Bancroft Prize? The media won’t talk. Will this book be discredited by future events? Probably. Bellesiles claimed he gathered material from an archive in San Francisco, but this archive burned down in the Earthquake and Fire of 1906! There were other faults in his research when checked against the known facts. He claimed there was no wide spread ownership of guns because of a lack of mention in probate records. If there were no listing of shoes and clothes did it mean people were barefoot and nude? Should a library buy a book that seems false?

Waldman notes that Federal law required male citizens to own a gun (p.65). Joining the militia was like a social organization (VFW, AL). The members could discuss their concerns, as in a public tavern. It depended on citizen’s compliance (p.66). Waldman does discuss the economics of the “Whiskey Rebellion”. Wasn’t George Washington the biggest whiskey manufacturer who sought to limit competition? Waldman ignores rural life then or now when firearms are a defense against wildlife (foxes, wolves, bears, and, thieves). That Tennessee court decision sounds like the end justifying the means. See Taney’s decision as another example (p.69). Didn’t Justice Taney receive money from the State of Virginia? Waldman admits disarmament is needed for enslavement (p.70) and armament is needed for freedom (p.71). So what side is he on? Does Waldman and the forces behind him really want a reactivated militia where men (and women now) could meet and assemble to provide a united front? He says the Fourteenth Amendment supports the right to keep and bear arms (p.73). Page 76 tells what happens to a disarmed people! The Sullivan Act did NOT lower the number of murders (p.80)!

Who paid for the publication of this book? Years ago Michael Waldman wrote a book over twenty years ago about the Savings & Loan Looting. Whose side was he on then? Was he “co opted” since? When the 1968 Gun Control Act passed there were about 15,000 violent deaths by firearms in the USA (about 7,000 murders and the more numerous suicides). Over the next 25 years this number doubled! What good did that law do? Since 1993 the number has stayed about the same. You can look up the total of violent deaths by other means (blunt and sharp force injuries) if you can find them. I read a book that said mass shootings first began in the late 1940s. Were there any in earlier times when there were no Federal Gun Control laws? Is there a lesson here? Was society different then? Small businesses, no shopping malls, people lived in stable neighborhoods, neighborhood schools, no television (or video games), far fewer cars.

Why were there no mass shootings before WW II when guns were more plentiful? What about the rural areas where firearms as necessary as a tractor, plow, or reaper? Population density? The Ten Commandments on display and revered (if not always followed)? That TV program “House” has an important lesson: if the problem is not correctly diagnosed it can’t be solved. Are people like Waldman part of the problem or the solution? Since there were fewer firearm deaths before the 1968 Gun Control Act shouldn’t it be repealed? Why not?

Chapter 5 “Revolt at Cincinnati” came after passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act (which is based on the Nazi gun control act of 1933). The members voted out the Board of Directors in an example of democracy. [A similar event occurred at Consumers Union.] The 1968 GCA banned the importation of any rifle that could take a bayonet. This anti-competitive law was welcomed by domestic manufacturers to reduce competition. Most countries were dumping their WW I era rifles to adopt modern arms like the AK-47 or M-16 (the equivalent of the WW I era BAR). Clinton’s dishonesty and hypocrisy is documented on page 94. People responded by voting for his opposition. Was fear used to motivate people? Doesn’t advertising do that every day? Would Waldman admit that taxes are higher and wages are lower since Nixon was president?

Waldman creates a false “biography” by claiming “the right to keep and bear arms” is a modern invention when it is his “biography” that is false. The militias of the 18th and 19th centuries were done away with because they gave power to the average citizens and they would not act as strike-breakers like the new state-controlled “National Guard”. The new class of a manufacturing aristocracy wanted a force that they could control. Just read some history books.

I guess the problem is waldman's book contains so many basic errors of fact on the core issues. The two times he mentions Heller he writes that the DC law "barred individuals from keeping a loaded handgun at home without a trigger lock."

That wasn't the main issue with Heller. DC law essentially barred everyone who didn't own a handgun before the 1970's from obtaining one under any circumstances.

And Waldman belongs to an school of thought that advocates collectivization of several rights. That tis a fairly dangerous slippery slope given most of the core bill of rights liberties can be claimed to be dangerous to society.

Pew has found that over 95% of those advocating gun control think gun murder is up or flat when it is half of levels 20 years ago. The gun control movement is denialist on the core trend affecting the issue.

Fortunately waldman represents a shrinking fringe. The Yale Cognitive Program found that the more informed people were on gun trends, gun law and the constitution the LESS they support more gun control. As people get more informed support for more gun control is now at 1/3 of the country and falling:
content.gallup.COM/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lkhl1y5snewjpkeg7lxbwa.png

Oh man, where to start.
Waldman is clearly an intelligent man, this much is beyond debate, but this book is misguided at best. I guess I'll bring it with me on my next camping trip, so I have something to burn in case of emergency.

"MURKY"? So the language of the 2nd amendment is "murky"? How can the SCOTUS rule abortion is a right but gun ownership isn't when it has its own amendment specifically stated?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" These words can be argued all day long with the likes of Justice Stevens but the argument should always end with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Stare Decicis

All this book does is support the misinformed hard left view that individual ownership of firearms is a mere formality that the courts refused to speak about in the past. Apparently, until now. It twists the image of militias to support their militia requirement. It even goes so far as to insist there were laws against loaded firearms in the homes during the founding where in reality the only laws were those enforced by the British on the colonies or laid upon the colonies by it British supporters. Another flame to the tinder of revolution.

Much of the 'history' in this book is biased, inaccurate, or just plain wrong.

The author also ascribes thoughts and intentions to historical figures that have no documented. In fact the figures typically have views 180-degrees opposite from those the author attributes to them.

And worst of all, he willfully misinterprets the Second Amendment itself, twisting the language from it's intended to it's modern meanings.

Unless you are looking for a sham defense of gun control 'logic', leave this one on the shelf.

In a recent New York Times editorial the author stated that Michael Waldman’s book The Second Amendment: A Biography is rigorous and scholarly. I cannot support the idea that the book reflects either characteristic.

Credible scholarship involves a complete review of literature and an objective presentation of findings. That is to say, as much available information as possible is reviewed and findings are presented completely and objectively. They do not selectively present only those findings that support a biased point of view.

A complete review of Second Amendment literature will not support a variety of Waldman’s positions. He presents the following ideas. (1) The right to keep and bear arms only involved membership in militias that have now been replaced by a professional armed service. (2) The Second Amendment does not relate to a private right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or any purpose other than joining the militia. (3) In 1977 the National Rifle Association set out to change the meaning of the Second Amendment to include an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a collective right involving militia membership. (4) The NRA position takes the Founders’ words completely out of context to support a new meaning of the amendment. (5) The US Supreme Court’s Heller decision rejected centuries of settled law. (6) The court’s decision was based on conservative dogma, not the real meaning of the amendment.

A great deal of literature is available that will not support Waldman’s views.

Consider the works of St. George Tucker and Henry St. George Tucker as two examples. In early America, a law student often read nothing more than St. George Tucker's edition of Blackstone' Commentaries to become a practicing attorney. Tucker's edition of the Commentaries has been referenced repeatedly by the United States Supreme Court as an authoritative source in interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries (Appendix) 300, 1803, St. George Tucker wrote: "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature ... Wherever ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms is under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

In his Commentaries on the Laws of Virginia, 43, 1831, Henry St. George Tucker, President of the Virginia Supreme Court, wrote that "the right of bearing arms" is one of the "protection of barriers [which] have been erected which serve to maintain inviolate the three primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."

Another example is the Virginia Supreme Court found in Parrish v. Commonwealth (81 VA. 1, 12, 1884) that "The right of self-defense ... is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be superseded by the law of society."

An additional example is the 1857 Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. Chief Justise Taney delivered the majority opinion stating that Dred Scott had no standing as a citizen of the United States and, as not a citizen, could not file suit in a court in the United States. Chief Justice Taney outlined a variety of actions a slave or a free black person could not take and rights that they did not have because they were not citizens. But in doing so, he outlined the rights of those who are citizens. Citizens can "enter every other state whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of the law ..." Citizens can exercise "...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects ..." Citizens can "...hold public meetings upon political affairs..." Citizens can " ... keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Also, many quotations can be found from the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers documenting that the "militia" is "the body of the people." In fact, it can be demonstrated that an armed citizenry is a fundamental concept of our republican system of government.

In regard to whether or not the "militia" is recognized by the federal government today, consider United States Code, Article 10, Sec. 311, which states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." "The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." It is important to understand that the militia did die out as Waldman states but exists as federal law today. Depending on his age, Mr. Waldman is or has been a militia member since he was 17 years of age.

And consider Mr. Waldman’s idea that the US Supreme Court’s Heller decision rejected centuries of settled law. Any constitutional scholar understands what happened with the Compromise of 1877. It was agreed that the federal government would withdraw occupying armies from southern states and not enforce the 13th (no slavery), the 14th (equal rights for all), and the 15th (everyone can vote) amendments. The “settled law” Mr. Waldman cites is based on the Supreme Court gutting the Civil War amendments after 1877. Of course, gun control is how the Ku Klux Klan maintained control of southern blacks for generations. Only with the Heller decision and other recent Second Amendment cases has the Supreme Court begun to restore the Second Amendment as one of the "protection of barriers [which] have been erected which serve to maintain inviolate the three primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."

There is a great deal of relevant information supporting the position that the Second Amendment recognizes a right of citizens to own and carry private arms. The right is based on the "natural right" of self defense and a concept of government based on an armed citizenry that is meant to keep tyrannical government in check. A rigorous and scholarly review of the literature will reveal these findings. Dr. Joseph L. Bass [email protected]

This so-called "biography" is a lame and weak attempt to frame the anti-gun rights cabal as representing "the people" with the view that the Constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights are not stated law to be interpreted by the Supreme Court but subject to the whim of the current popular vote.

Really?

In a recent published interview, the author of The Second Amendment, a Biography, stated that,

"For all the intense debate over it, what the Second Amendment means today is up to all of us. It’s not etched in stone. It shouldn’t be up to the courts – it’s something for the people to decide, as the Constitution said. It’s up to each generation to figure out how to make it work."

Now by any standard this is a startling and shocking statement that runs counter to 200 years of Constitutional Law. Would Michael Waldman state that this concept applies to the other freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of association and so forth?

Of all the anti-gun positions this is easily the most inane as if this precept were established policy then there is no reason even to have a Constitution at all, we just legislate according to the beck and sway of daily popular opinion. Those on the far-left who might celebrate such a revolutionary turn of American politics might well remember that the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court has long protected all the rights of all the people, often against current public opinion.

The again, maybe they think that would be a good thing since, in the end, gun control is really all about people control.

There are rational and honorable divergent views on the Second Amendment, but this book isn't one of them. It'll be read and celebrated by gun control fanatics but will not have one iota of influence on changing the nations longstanding balance of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.

He tries to convince readers that the Founders were not much on gun ownership by the people. It's all a rewrite of history by the NRA to think that the Founders wanted citizens to own firearms is the summary of his book. The author thinks If the Founders wanted the people to be armed they would have put it clearly in law that we could own firearms, we could hunt, we could defend ourself with firearms. That would be similar if one thought the First Amendment only applied to pamphlets because it did not state in exact detail every instance of free speech that was allowed. Also, with that point it would be only to things that existed of that day not the internet, radio & TV. Many of the representatives at the Constitutional Convention were Anti-Federalist, such as George Mason thought the Bill of Rights were harmful by listing rights. He & others thought that being only a few enumerated powers were granted to the federal government that by listing certain rights would infer that unless each & every right was listed it would not be considered a right to the people or to the states. The 9th & 10th Amendments were added to hopefully address the concerns of the Anti-Federalist like Mason.
Also, if the founders were not comfortable with an armed citizenship why would they let them go home after the war with the most advanced military weapon of the day? It would be the equivalent of our Armies' fully automatic M-4 or M-16.
Again another attempt to try to re-write the history of America's founding to conform to a Statist ideology. Name the one Founder who argued against an armed populist. Still waiting for this name since 1989 when I asked one of my Constitutional Law Professors. Never have got that name of that Founder who felt the same as this author. So please give the name of a representative that was at the Constitutional Convention that argued for an unarmed populist. We have detailed notes of the Convention & I have read them many times. The Founders were very clear when looking at their debates & notes.
Go ahead & read it but also read "The Constitutional Convention and the Foundation of the Union" by William U. Solberg and read "Creating the Bill of Rights The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress." Do your own research from as many original documents as possible. You can often catch the author on MSMBC after any shooting tragedies occur.

One of the primary points of Waldman’s thesis that the original intent of the Second Amendment focused exclusively on the Militia and its role in defense of the state. Waldman himself is not a fan of any kind of originalism with respect to constitutional law and it shows with his cherry picked interpretation of the drafter’s intent with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
From the horse’s mouth:

No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution.

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" - Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."- James Madison Federalist Papers 46

“to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.- Patrick Henry

Most of us understand on an intuitive level that the Bill of Rights was created to place limits on the government, not the citizenry. Disregarding the vast body of evidence supporting the current understanding of the Second Amendment (DC v Heller) is the only way Waldman can make such a weak and unpersuasive argument.

The transformation of the NRA from an organization whose mission was to foster shooting sports to one that fights gun control legislation, Waldman’s other primary point, was necessitated by the wave of gun control legislation that began in the late 1960’s. Before this, firearms were as easy to purchase as any other consumer product. No background checks, no FFL (Federal Firearms Licensing), no waiting periods, and very few limitations on what could be purchased. The NRA’s transformation is entirely understandable in this light because before the Gun Control Act of 1968, there were very few restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms.

Waldman should drop the pretense of an “academic” analysis of this topic and just come right out and say he doesn’t think the Second Amendment means what the vast majority of the population, the Courts and the framers of the Constitution believe it means.