The ACS Blog is hosting this symposium on D.C. v. Heller:
May 15 marks the 75th anniversary of United States v. Miller, a 1939 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of weapons that were not related to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia.” For decades, this was the only consideration the Court gave the Second Amendment, and arguably, it was generally understood that the Amendment's scope was limited to the use of firearms in connection with military activities. This changed in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, and subsequently in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago, when the Court declared that the Second Amendment provided an "individual right to possess a firearm.” The Court explained that they were not overturning Miller; that Miller only limited the type of weapon to which the individual right applies. As we consider the constitutional, legal and policy questions that now surround the Second Amendment, we should take a step back and ask if the Supreme Court got it right in Heller and McDonald. How should the Second Amendment be interpreted? ACS is pleased to raise this important question with progressive constitutional scholars and historians in an ACSblog symposium this week, May 5 through May 9.
Contributions include:
The Conservative Case for a Home-Bound Second Amendment, by Darrell A. H. Miller (Duke)
Making Peace with the Second Amendment, by Sanford Levinson (University of Texas)
History and 'Heller': The Past as a Two-Edged Sword, by Saul Cornell (Fordham)
One Cheer for 'District of Columbia v. Heller' by Jamal Greene (Columbia)
‘Heller’ Was Right, by Adam Winkler (UCLA)
(Thanks to Saul Cornell for the pointer.)
Posted at 9:07 AM