RJO
2012-12-31 15:50:07 UTC
Heraldic scholars will be amused to read a newly-published paper by
the late Peter Junger on "The Original Plain Meaning of the Right to
Bear Arms" as that right appears in the US Constitution. The paper is
in the Case Western Reserve Law Review, or as the lawyers say, 63 Case
W. Res. L. Rev. 141 (2012). The full text is here:
http://law.case.edu/journals/LawReview/Documents/63CaseWResLRev1.5.Essay.Junger.pdf
It probably isn't often that American law journals cite cases from the
Court of Chivalry, even tongue-in-cheek:
"Clearly the intent of the framers is to be found in the plain meaning
of their words in 1789 when Congress adopted the Bill of Rights and
proposed them for ratification by the states. But what did the 'right
to bear arms' mean in 1789? The obvious answer is given by the 1955
judgment of the Court of Chivalry in Manchester Corp. v. Manchester
Palace of Varieties, Ltd. It turns out that the 'right to bear arms'
is the same as the right to display armorial bearings, and that the
original plain meaning of the Second Amendment is that the government
shall not infringe upon one’s right to be a lady or a gentleman. That
the Second Amendment so skillfully avoids the use of sexist language
suggests that, rather than a barbarous anachronism, it is one of the
most principled provisions of the pre-Civil War Constitution."
For ongoing "learned" commentary on the paper, see:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/31/the-right-to-display-armorial-bearings/
RJO
the late Peter Junger on "The Original Plain Meaning of the Right to
Bear Arms" as that right appears in the US Constitution. The paper is
in the Case Western Reserve Law Review, or as the lawyers say, 63 Case
W. Res. L. Rev. 141 (2012). The full text is here:
http://law.case.edu/journals/LawReview/Documents/63CaseWResLRev1.5.Essay.Junger.pdf
It probably isn't often that American law journals cite cases from the
Court of Chivalry, even tongue-in-cheek:
"Clearly the intent of the framers is to be found in the plain meaning
of their words in 1789 when Congress adopted the Bill of Rights and
proposed them for ratification by the states. But what did the 'right
to bear arms' mean in 1789? The obvious answer is given by the 1955
judgment of the Court of Chivalry in Manchester Corp. v. Manchester
Palace of Varieties, Ltd. It turns out that the 'right to bear arms'
is the same as the right to display armorial bearings, and that the
original plain meaning of the Second Amendment is that the government
shall not infringe upon one’s right to be a lady or a gentleman. That
the Second Amendment so skillfully avoids the use of sexist language
suggests that, rather than a barbarous anachronism, it is one of the
most principled provisions of the pre-Civil War Constitution."
For ongoing "learned" commentary on the paper, see:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/31/the-right-to-display-armorial-bearings/
RJO