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 97
... like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its own facts and the line between what is and what is not a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the other of the line. [99: p.
[f] It arouses passionate debate even among the general public, probably even more than the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause does. It should arouse similar passions among your students. Better yet, it might even arouse ...
Scott A. Henderson (1999) said Turning to the text, those who espouse the collective rights school argue that the justification clause places a limitation or a condition precedent on the right. [f] This would be plausible if the text ...
Consequently, all interpreters must decide how to balance the preface, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” with the subsequent clause articulating a noninfringeable “right of the people to keep ...
Thus neither the militia nor the right to bear arms provision can be taken in isolation as a sufficient explanation of the second amendment, a fact made obvious by the first Congress' retention of both clauses during its extensive ...
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