The recent proliferation of writings on the Second Amendment makes numerous claims including: (1) there has been little or no legal scholarship on the Second Amendment until recent times; (2) the "individualist" view of the Second Amendment is the dominant or mainstream paradigm; (3) the courts have committed a "dereliction of duty" insofar as they have been silent on, or indifferent to, interpretation of the Second Amendment; and (4) since three of the four Supreme Court cases concerning the Second Amendment were decided in the nineteenth century, the court doctrine is somehow defective, irrelevant, outdated, unclear, or "embarrassing." In this Article, Spitzer rebuts these claims based on his detailed study of law journal literature on the Second Amendment and suggests that law journals provide a breeding ground for occasionally wayward theories of constitutional meaning.

Included in

Law Commons