The First Two Amendments

Eric Segall esegall at
Thu Mar 4 05:11:42 PST 2010

How is it that the Constitution contained this enumerated right to bear arms but the right was never applied by the Court to individuals until 2007? For those who care about history (whether it is originalism or Barry Freidman's idea of continuing evolutions of history), was the Court just wrong all those years? This is not like other provisions that the Court has not addressed (such as the President has to be 35) because we have never had a 34 year old run. But there have been state and federal gun laws forever, and they have been challenged, and in lower courts and the Supreme Court. Is it possible that there is a little hubris to the idea that all the other Courts were wrong and this one is right?

And before thoose on the right criticize me for being inconsistent, let me add that I think Roe, Lawrence, Plyer, etc., were all incorrectly decided.

In fact, I think that the fact that the Constitution specifically mentions "arms" though in an ambiguous way (because of the Militia Clause) makes my argument even stronger. It's been there are along but Courts in every other generation got it wrong?

Eric Segall
Ga. State College of Law

More information about the Conlawprof mailing list