No Guarantee of a Gun: How and Why the Second Amendment Means Exactly What It Says
The information in this book proves by means of credible and irrefutable documentary evidence that the Supreme Court's decision on June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess and carry weapons, was incorrect. And the information in this book forms the foundation of what would have been the correct decision in that case.
Second Amendment commentary and case law are incorrect. But unfortunately, they are relied upon by today's scholars and jurists. However, this book, written in plain English instead of the legalese that many persons find unappealing about books pertaining to legal subjects, takes the bold step of disproving these incorrect authorities on the most controversial and puzzling provision of the United States Constitution, and it meets that challenge.
While other books on the Second Amendment rely largely on incorrect commentary and case law, this book uses credible and irrefutable documentary evidence to uncover the substance of the Second Amendment. By proving that Second Amendment commentary and case law are incorrect, this book will become both the preeminent treatise on the Second Amendment and a landmark book in the field of Constitutional law. And while gun control has been a highly controversial issue for a long time, the debate on gun control has been improperly bifurcated into what is good public policy and what is Constitutional. This book eliminates the Constitutional component of that debate so that the debate can be focused solely on what is good public policy.
Other books written on the Second Amendment propose incorrect theories or attempt to reconcile its two supposed clauses. However, this book is the best book ever written on the Second Amendment because it does what no other book has ever done. It uncovers, by means of documentary evidence instead of mere argument, the true meanings of the terms A well regulated Militia, people, keep, and bear arms.
Results 1-5 of 81
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique in American law in that virtually all of the case ... Militia that is today known as the National Guard and not to individuals who are proficient in the use of weapons; ...
Nevertheless, one reasonably can conclude that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms without relying on a strained textual, historical, or jurisprudential analysis. [f] Thus, from a nonoriginalist ...
There is one point of the constitutional argument that the defendant and the government share: they both believe that the Second Amendment must be construed to confer individual -- not collective -- rights, a viewpoint espoused by the ...
It is well-established that the Second Amendment does not create an individual right. Since Miller, “the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.
Accordingly, the Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias. [527: p. 235] In Washington v.
What people are saying - Write a review
PART III TYING UP LOOSE ENDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
PART IV THE SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND CLAIM