Whiskey Rebellion

[Volokh, Eugene]

   I'll try to look into this myself as soon as I get back to the office
from my trips, but in the meantime I thought I'd ask both Paul and Saul
Cornell (and whoever else might be an expert on this):  Did the government
disarm only those people whom it was arresting for rebellion, or was there a
broader disarmament?

   It seems to me that if the government only disarmed those whom it was
arresting (or at least those whom it probable cause to arrest), that tells
us fairly little:  Given that the government can lock up arrestees (perhaps
subject to bail), search them, and so on, I'm not sure we can make many
claims about the supposed narrowness of the right to bear arms from the fact
that the government disarms arrestees, too.

   Eugene


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Finkelman
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Sent: 1/28/01 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Right to bear arms

Fed govt. disarmed and arrested lots of people in Pa. in suppressing the
Whiskey Rebellion. I not have books handy to give more details, but the
literature on the W. Rebellion is readily available in most libraries.
As far as I know No One raised a 2nd Am. issue at the time.

The big issues at the time were whether the Fed. Gov. would prosecute
people and for what? Including Treason. In the end scoares were arrested
but all were acquitted or pardoned or had their cases dismissed for lack
of sufficient evidence.


--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East Fourth Place
Tulsa, OK  74104


918-631-3706
Fax 918-631-2194


E-mail:  paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu




Nelson Lund wrote:


Michael McConnell wrote:

Paul Finkelman writes: Cealry Madison and Hamilton and other federalists
believed they had to be able to disarm the rabble, as the govt. does
during the Whiskey Rebellion for example;That strikes me as a useful
line of inquiry: What, precisely, did the federal government do during
the Whiskey Rebellion? Did it disarm anyone?  If so, was this confined
to actual participants in the rebellion? Was the Second Amendment raised
as a defense? Did Congress pass any statutes limiting the right to bear
arms?

Have I missed something, or have Michael McConnell's penetrating
questions simply gone unanswered?

Nelson Lund







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010129/646031d8/attachment.htm