Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

In a recent New York Times editorial the author stated that Michael Waldman’s book The Second Amendment: A Biography is rigorous and scholarly. I cannot support the idea that the book reflects either characteristic. Credible scholarship involves a complete review of literature and an objective presentation of findings. That is to say, as much available information as possible is reviewed and findings are presented completely and objectively. They do not selectively present only those findings that support a biased point of view. A complete review of Second Amendment literature will not support a variety of Waldman’s positions. He presents the following ideas. (1) The right to keep and bear arms only involved membership in militias that have now been replaced by a professional armed service. (2) The Second Amendment does not relate to a private right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or any purpose other than joining the militia. (3) In 1977 the National Rifle Association set out to change the meaning of the Second Amendment to include an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a collective right involving militia membership. (4) The NRA position takes the Founders’ words completely out of context to support a new meaning of the amendment. (5) The US Supreme Court’s Heller decision rejected centuries of settled law. (6) The court’s decision was based on conservative dogma, not the real meaning of the amendment. A great deal of literature is available that will not support Waldman’s views. Consider the works of St. George Tucker and Henry St. George Tucker as two examples. In early America, a law student often read nothing more than St. George Tucker's edition of Blackstone' Commentaries to become a practicing attorney. Tucker's edition of the Commentaries has been referenced repeatedly by the United States Supreme Court as an authoritative source in interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries (Appendix) 300, 1803, St. George Tucker wrote: "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature ... Wherever ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms is under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." In his Commentaries on the Laws of Virginia, 43, 1831, Henry St. George Tucker, President of the Virginia Supreme Court, wrote that "the right of bearing arms" is one of the "protection of barriers [which] have been erected which serve to maintain inviolate the three primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property." Another example is the Virginia Supreme Court found in Parrish v. Commonwealth (81 VA. 1, 12, 1884) that "The right of self-defense ... is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be superseded by the law of society." An additional example is the 1857 Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. Chief Justise Taney delivered the majority opinion stating that Dred Scott had no standing as a citizen of the United States and, as not a citizen, could not file suit in a court in the United States. Chief Justice Taney outlined a variety of actions a slave or a free black person could not take and rights that they did not have because they were not citizens. But in doing so, he outlined the rights of those who are citizens. Citizens can "enter every other state whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of the law ..." Citizens can exercise "...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects ..." Citizens can "...hold public meetings upon political affairs..." Citizens can " ... keep and carry arms wherever they went." Also, many quotations can be found from the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers documenting that the "militia" is "the body of the people." In fact, it can be demonstrated that an armed citizenry is a fundamental concept of our republican system of government. In regard to whether or not the "militia" is recognized by the federal government today, consider United States Code, Article 10, Sec. 311, which states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." "The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." It is important to understand that the militia did die out as Waldman states but exists as federal law today. Depending on his age, Mr. Waldman is or has been a militia member since he was 17 years of age. And consider Mr. Waldman’s idea that the US Supreme Court’s Heller decision rejected centuries of settled law. Any constitutional scholar understands what happened with the Compromise of 1877. It was agreed that the federal government would withdraw occupying armies from southern states and not enforce the 13th (no slavery), the 14th (equal rights for all), and the 15th (everyone can vote) amendments. The “settled law” Mr. Waldman cites is based on the Supreme Court gutting the Civil War amendments after 1877. Of course, gun control is how the Ku Klux Klan maintained control of southern blacks for generations. Only with the Heller decision and other recent Second Amendment cases has the Supreme Court begun to restore the Second Amendment as one of the "protection of barriers [which] have been erected which serve to maintain inviolate the three primary rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property." There is a great deal of relevant information supporting the position that the Second Amendment recognizes a right of citizens to own and carry private arms. The right is based on the "natural right" of self defense and a concept of government based on an armed citizenry that is meant to keep tyrannical government in check. A rigorous and scholarly review of the literature will reveal these findings. Dr. Joseph L. Bass Bassjl@aol.com