Princeton University Professor Advocates Broad "Peace of the Community" Legal Theory

[Epaphroditus]

Just how wrong was Madison?

"Madison dismisses as highly unlikely the chances of the federal government being able to raise an army powerful enough to overcome all the state militias."

[BAJ475]

Just how wrong was Madison?

"Madison dismisses as highly unlikely the chances of the federal government being able to raise an army powerful enough to overcome all the state militias."

Maybe, maybe not. While there is no debate that the federal government has a very powerful army, every member of that army swore an oath to defend the Constitution. So how does that army defeat the state militias when they have sworn to fight for the same cause?

[IronsightsRifleman]

If we're now calling journalists scientists we might as well call opinions theories.

[BB1776]

Then we got the 14th Amendment.

Precisely. It?s not authoritarianism, it?s extreme federalism. Just as other rights were incorporated so, too, must the 2nd.

[Urban Achiever]

She pulled that stuff out of her ***. One simply has to read about the Constitutional Convention, the debate between the Federalists and Anti Federalists and the fear that the Anti Federalists had in regards to an overly powerful Federal government. The Bill of Rights are individual rights to protect against abuse of authority in order to get everyone on board with the Constitution. Also, the Enlightenment philosophers of that time which influenced the creators of our Constitution were strong advocates of individual rights, not collectivism.

I think these clowns are trying to make up some kind of historical tradition argument by propping up these straw men in response to the Bruen opinion.

[AlmostHeaven]

She pulled that stuff out of her ***. One simply has to read about the Constitutional Convention, the debate between the Federalists and Anti Federalists and the fear that the Anti Federalists had in regards to an overly powerful Federal government. The Bill of Rights are individual rights to protect against abuse of authority in order to get everyone on board with the Constitution. Also, the Enlightenment philosophers of that time which influenced the creators of our Constitution were strong advocates of individual rights, not collectivism.

I think these clowns are trying to make up some kind of historical tradition argument by propping up these straw men in response to the Bruen opinion.

Several liberal lower courts have fought hard to enter expert testimony from "trained historians" into the record on gun rights cases. Many academics and scholars, particularly within humanities majors, lean extremely strongly to the left and would passionately invent entirely new theories exclusively to support upholding gun control laws.

This professor has done exactly that.

[Rickybillegas]

Several liberal lower courts have fought hard to enter expert testimony from "trained historians" into the record on gun rights cases. Many academics and scholars, particularly within humanities majors, lean extremely strongly to the left and would passionately invent entirely new theories exclusively to support upholding gun control laws.

This professor has done exactly that.

And all these 'professors' are very hard at work with great consternation over HELLER and BRUEN.

[Offwidth]

Several liberal lower courts have fought hard to enter expert testimony from "trained historians" into the record on gun rights cases. Many academics and scholars, particularly within humanities majors, lean extremely strongly to the left and would passionately invent entirely new theories exclusively to support upholding gun control laws.

This professor has done exactly that.

It is not an entirely new theory.

[AlmostHeaven]

It is not an entirely new theory.

The theories may not be entirely new, but NYSRPA v. Bruen elevated the significance of historians, Founding Era scholars, and academic experts to an unprecedented degree.

The Second Amendment community has a new front to engage, the issue of anti-gun expert witnesses misrepresenting historical analogues to justify upholding the constitutionality of gun control laws. Already, liberal courts have begun relying on legal briefs poisoned by testimony from these people.

[Rickybillegas]

Because text/history/tradition as defined by Bruen supersedes 'balancing interest', so lets torture and contort the historical record to get what we want, and we know the friendly district courts will very likely go along.

[AlmostHeaven]

Because text/history/tradition as defined by Bruen supersedes 'balancing interest', so lets torture and contort the historical record to get what we want, and we know the friendly district courts will very likely go along.

For authoritarians, the conclusion of "civilian gun ownership is bad and should be restricted" never changes. The only variable is how to reach the pre-determined result.