Charlie Wilson's War underlines the fact that those who wish to keep informed sometimes are overwhelmed by the number of longish books out there, all competing with your limited reading time that also needs to take into consideration other works such as T is for Trespass ... Sue Grafton's latest in her alphabet mystery series (which I have read since the mid-1980s). Blogs and articles do provide a way to keep track of things, and for the eclectic reader, that does provide a necessary resource. Book reviews also provide a useful summary -- some more informative ones (e.g., NYT, various news magazines) even have theme reviews that supply an overview of a few with a similar theme.
Still, there are various short to medium sized books out there for the general reader and those who want a bit more, that provide a good resource to keep informed. For instance, the "opposing viewpoints" series was a favorite when I was in school, including the amusing political cartoons found therein, providing quick essays on both sides of a diverse number of issues of the day. They still are quite useful and easily found at your local library. There are also series on the American presidents (written by a diverse group, not just historians), various landmark Supreme Court cases (e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut and Marbury v. Madison) and extended essays by the likes of Bill Moyers and Gary Hart on topics of current importance.
Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle Over Guns by Mark V. Tushnet is part of the general trend, itself part of the "inalienable rights" series that also includes thus far a book on the Constitution in the time of national emergency and one on racial justice. This thin (135 pages) but informative volume tackles the Second Amendment at a timely moment -- it would not be a bad idea for those interested in the upcoming Supreme Court argument on the D.C. regulation (the lower court ruling referenced in the book) to read Tushnet's account. It is a quick read, and though its length does not make it totally well-rounded, the book does provide a fair account of both sides of the debate.
I do think the book left a few things out, and size alone does not really justify that. It is somewhat debatable, I guess, if it's okay to not toss in James Madison's reference to an armed citizenry in the Federalist Papers, or an early 19th Century constitutional commentator (not Joseph Story) often cited for referencing the same point in promotion of the individual rights view. Thomas Jefferson also has an important cite to the "well disciplined militia" in his first inaugural address. Other examples can be suggested. It seems less so to not even mention the Brady ruling (Printz v. U.S.) and only supply a drive-by cite of the guns near schools case (Lopez), surely since Justice Thomas cites the Second Amendment in the former case. And, guns are not just about the Second Amendment.*
Tushnet argues that an originalist view leans toward, though not totally conclusively, an individual rights view. However, other techniques arguably lean the other way ... probably a bit less conclusively. Since even an originalist view (along with state constitutions with clear individual rights provisions, at least per common interpretations by their courts) leaves one open to some sort of regulation, Tushnet's conclusion is that there is no clear solution by an appeal to the Constitution. Not that many on both sides would agree, thinking their appeals downright conclusive. He also is rather dubious on the benefits of regulations as a whole, though accepts that small steps might be useful.
Tushnet argues that it boils down to a type of culture war, which is probably true on a diverse number of constitutional issues. He also notes that to the degree an originalist view helps the individual rights side (again, only up to a point, and not conclusively), it should be realized that pure originalist is simply not how we usually do things anyway. Tushnet cites Justice Breyer's book on Active Liberty:
They read the text’s language along with related language in other parts of the document. They take account of its history, including history that shows what the language likely meant to those who wrote it. They look to tradition indicating how the relevant language was, and is, used in the law. They examine precedents interpreting the phrase, holding or suggesting what the phrase means and how it has been applied. They try to understand the phrase’s purposes or (in respect to many constitutional phrases) the values that it embodies, and they consider the likely consequences of the interpretive alternatives, valued in terms of the phrase’s purposes.
In fact, it seems to me that an "originalist" (as in what the Framers etc. originally figured would be done ... I realize the term can be defined in various ways) interpretation would follow a comparable line. Those who wrote, voted for/ratified, and so forth the Constitution were familiar as to how law and constitutions worked. When deciding what a constitutional provision meant, they did not just try to study the understanding of the people at the time of its creation. And, when they did, "understanding" was often a broad thing, the particulars often debated without agreement on many things.
Likewise, the test of time and precedent also mattered. It simply was not a matter of "original understanding," may the heavens fall. As an account of James Madison's acceptance of the Second Bank of the U.S., after opposing the first on constitutional grounds, notes:
As President, Madison signed the Second Bank Bill into law even though as a representative in the First Congress he opposed the bill because he believed Congress had no constitutional right to establish a national bank. But although he had voted against the First Bank Bill, by the time he was required to sign the Second Bank Bill as President of the United States, he recognized that "Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and (most importantly, by failing to use their amending power) the American people had for two decades accepted the existence and made use of the services of the First Bank," and he viewed this widespread acceptance as "a construction put on the Constitution by the nation, which, having made it, had the supreme right to declare its meaning."
Madison also had a comment as to how the meaning of statutes would only develop over their use and interpretation as well that Breyer would probably like. Anyway, I think such a path would benefit the individual rights view in some degree. The people as whole accept that view, if with limits and "reasonable" regulations. Top Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 supported that view and a "living Constitution" ruling would reasonably strike down the D.C. statute at least in part, or at least interpret it in such a way to recognize some individual right to own a firearm for self-defense.
As Tushnet notes, the D.C. law is a fairly extreme outlier anyway, and a pragmatic mild ruling is left open by the Constitution as well. Maybe, it would be a good idea if some of the justices -- let's say Kennedy, Souter and Breyer -- read the book too!
---
* Tushnet briefly suggests the Ninth Amendment might protect a right to self defense, but since a good argument can be made that the Second Amendment is primarily (if not solely) concerned with a particular use of weapons, this matter warrants a bit more discussion. As Saul Cornell, cited by Tushnet at various points, notes the militia and the common law right of self-defense in fact developed on different tracks. In fact, the Supreme Court's wording of the question posed for the D.C. case suggests self-defense is not a matter of the state-regulated militia as such.
In fact, there might be some confusion as to the Fourteenth Amendment as well, the "state's rights" component of the Second Amendment of particular concern here. Tushnet does cover this a bit, but it is quite logical to argue that the Second Amendment guards against federal tyranny by allowing states a check via their own militia. States, not a free-standing body (the Shay's Rebellion suggested the problems with them), would "regulate" such groups. Shades of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, this provides a check in cases of federal tyranny. And, "the people" suggests all groups would serve this civic republican function. Thus, individual ownership, but some regulation is legitimate.
State constitutional provisions that might be more individual rights minded arguably dealt with somewhat different concerns. OTOH, even there, the "militia" can be a state regulated group in which the people at large -- not armies -- provide domestic security. The Fourteenth Amendment (are you listening, Ron Paul?) is more individual rights focused with the Equal Protection Clause an added wrinkle (disfavored groups might benefit from being armed or having the right to join militia). It is only via incorporation that the Second Amendment would be applied to state laws in this area.
Focusing on the "Second Amendment," thus can confuse things.