Nelson Lund (George Mason University School of Law) has posted Stephen P. Halbrook’s Confused Defense of Bruen’s Novel Interpretive Rule (10 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Stephen P. Halbrook is a giant in the field of Second Amendment studies, and I doubt that there is anyone from whom I’ve learned more about the history of the right to keep and bear arms. I was therefore surprised to find many technical errors in his article, Text-and-History or Means-End Scrutiny? A Response to Professor Nelson Lund’s Critique of Bruen. Halbrook is also a very zealous and tenacious advocate for gun rights, and I can’t help wondering whether his zeal in defense of the Court may have obscured his scholarly vision.
The article being critiqued is Stephen P. Halbrook, Text-and-History or Means-End Scrutiny? A Response to Professor Nelson Lund’s Critique of Bruen, 24 Federalist Soc’y Rev. 54 (2023) (responding to Nelson Lund, Bruen’s Preliminary Preservation of the Second Amendment, 23 Federalist Soc’y Rev. 280 (2022)), available here.
Posted at 6:11 AM