Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment

Abstract

This article first rebuts charges made in Gun Crazy, an article which asserts that the near-unanimous consensus supporting the individual rights view of the Second Amendment among historians and legal scholars is the result of a sinister concerted effort by pro-gun professors and fellow travelers. Compelling textual, structural, historical, and criminological evidence supports the new consensus. The article then examines the merits of the interpretation proffered by opponents of an individual right to keep and bear arms: the militia-centric conception of the Second Amendment. Textual, historical, and structural considerations all argue against such an interpretation. Finally, the issue that is really motivating those who reject an individual rights interpretation in favor of a militia-centric conception of the Second Amendment is identified: the allegedly adverse effect of gun ownership on public safety.