Gunfight

What is especially ironic is that the strongest support for Scalia’s position comes from acknowledging that the Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, has been “dynamically” interpreted and has taken on some quite different meanings from those it originally had. Whatever might have been the case in 1787 with regard the linkage of guns to service in militias—and the historical record is far more mixed on this point than either Scalia or Stevens is willing to acknowledge—there can be almost no doubt that by the mid-19th century, an individual right to bear arms was widely accepted as a basic attribute of American citizenship.

-- Sandy Levinson (of "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" fame)

I share the overall sentiment on the Heller case -- sound result, somewhat questionable path taken to get there. The general public not quite caring about the legal dynamics of the question, special pleading on certain issues notwithstanding, this is not that bad, as Dilan noted on that thread. But, the problem is notable, particularly if we do claim to care about the legal details. I think the Second Amendment is concerned with a specific use of "arms," the individual rights view did become the dominant understanding over time but the issue there is more a separate important liberty that need not be based in the Second Amendment as such (dissenting opinion).

Either way, for those who want to know the historical background of the issue, Professor Adam Winkler's new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America is a good read. Prof. Volokh, of the same name blog, has a positive blurb, providing a blessing from the reasonable libertarian side of the issue. The book has a centrist sentiment -- there is clearly an individual right to keep and bear arms, but reasonable regulations are clearly allowed too. History (let me tell ya) showed this to be true. And, a ruling saying as much can provide a moderating tone to the issue.

Winkler tells the story well, starting with the Heller lawsuit and using it as a launching pad for different moments of history. Look! The NRA started as a gun regulation organization of sorts, only becoming the knee-jerk reactionaries they are now in the 1970s. Darn if D.C. was foolish to be so knee-jerk the other way. Down to earth account, a quick reading three hundred pages. It at times simplifies things a bit too much. For instance, Scalia's advisory section on legitimate gun regulations is backed up somewhat. The strong proponents on the gun control side is not quite as knee-jerk as portrayed in an early chapter. And, the book takes very little time to actually address the Heller opinions. I think, even given the limits of space and audience, a few clarifications could have been made.

Overall, however, it is a good book and a worthwhile addition to the major opinions as launching pads to examine major issues cottage industry out there. I particularly enjoy the genre because it provides a window or platform to address various important themes and issues. This is a useful way to educate and specific days, events or rulings are good ways to handle this sort of thing.