David E. Young Interview, You Ask the Questions

David Codrea, of The War on Guns, will be interviewing David Young this coming Monday. As with other War on Guns interviews, David C. will open the comments for questions from the masses. This is your chance to ask one of the top authorities on The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms your Second Amendment related questions.

Mark Your Calendars: David E. Young Interview

Check in, you might learn something.

Books by David E. Young:

The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792

The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment

Previous posts on David E. Young can be found here.

Something Else to Look Forward to at the NRA Annual Meeting

David Hardy and David Young will be sharing a booth at the NRA Annual Exhibits.

From the email (thanks David)

Hardy and Young will be Giving 'em Heller at NRA Exhibits Booth 1551

Those attending the 2008 NRA Annual Exhibits at the Kentucky Expo Center will have a unique and special opportunity this year as the Supreme Court considers the meaning of the Second Amendment in the DC vs Heller gun ban case. The Second Amendment Films booth (#1551) will have two notable independent Second Amendment scholars in attendance, David T. Hardy and David E. Young, both of whom have links to the Heller case.

David Hardy, attorney, author, and producer will be promoting his new documentary film, In Search of the Second Amendment, which is available on DVD. In addition to authoring the sourcebook, Origins and Development of the Second Amendment, and many law review articles advancing the individual rights nature of the Second Amendment's protection, David Hardy is a co-author of the amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the current DC vs Heller case by Academics for the Second Amendment, and he attended the oral arguments before the Court.

David Young, historical scholar, editor, and author will be promoting his new definitive history of the Second Amendment, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, as well as The Origin of the Second Amendment, the complete Constitutional Era document collection that he edited and published. Mr. Young's books have been cited to the U.S. Supreme Court a total of fifty-five times in various briefs filed in the current DC vs Heller gun ban case, and his document collection was extensively relied on in prior appeals court pro-rights decisions leading to the current case.

If you do a search of this blog, you will find both David's mentioned on more than one occasion. I will be spending more than a few moments at booth #1551.

If you can not attend, and have questions for either David, let me know and I will ask them for you.

David E. Young on DC v Heller

The City of Chicago has stepped into the fray of DC v Heller on the side of D.C. (who'd of guessed). David E. Young comments that "The brief filed by Chicago heavily emphasizes a historically impossible federalism purpose for the Second Amendment rather than a rights protecting purpose." He goes in to further detail with CHICAGO RE-WRITES U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS HISTORY and does a good job of explaining just how far off the mark Chicago is with this brief.

You can find more of Mr. Young's thoughts on his DC vs Heller Commentary Page. His arguments are well worth reading.

Also recommending Mr. Young's work is David over at The War on Guns.

Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional

Saul Cornell is a Professor of History at the Ohio State University, and a dedicated anti. He has published several essays and a couple of books that purport to prove that the second amendment is not an individual right. He plays fast and loose with the facts of history and is easily Fisked as proven by E. David Quammen here.

I only bring up Mr. Cornell because he has joined with 14 other professional academic historians to file an amicus brief in support of D.C. in D.C. v Heller. These 15 history professors came to the conclusion that

"...the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms..."

Just reading that quote brings a little bile to the back of my throat. These are professors of history, people we pay good money to teach our kids history.

David E. Young, author and historian, has taken this brief to task. He points out their errors and omissions in an article published on the George Mason University's History News Network.

Why DC's Gun Law Is Unconstitutional

Historical arguments about American bills of rights are major points of discussion in the District of Columbia vs Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue is exactly what the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means and whether it was proper for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn Washington D.C.'s handgun ban for violating the Second Amendment. An amicus brief in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban dealing with the historical issues in the case was filed by fifteen professional academic historians. One would expect such a brief to be historically accurate, address the Second Amendment in its proper Bill of Rights related context, and include the most relevant figures, statements, and actions for understanding any historical issues in the dispute. However, any such expectation is left largely unfulfilled in the historians' brief.

Mr. Young does a very good job of disproving the basic premise behind these so called "scholars" support of the DC gun ban. Head on over and give it a read, you may learn something.

DC vs Heller, A Quick Post

I am late in commenting on today's Supreme Court decision on Washington D.C. vs Heller. A long days work and all that. The court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller, outstanding. To tell the truth, recent decisions handed down by the court had me a bit worried about this case, and I was not expecting a 5/4 decision in favor of Heller. I thought it was either going to be 9/0 in favor of Heller, or 5/4 against.

The Supreme Court of the United States should have handed down an unanimous decision in favor of Heller. The facts were laid out before them and the arguments for the DC gun ban were debunked.

Jim Lindgren, of the Volokh Conspiracy, stated:

In dissent, Justice Stevens seems to have been unduly influenced by the brief from brief from historians and law professors putting forward a "civic rights" view. That brief was put together by Carl Bogus and joined by many historians who initially jumped to Michael Bellesiles's defense, including Jack Rakove, Saul Cornell, and Paul Finkelman.

David E. Young, author and historian, had taken this brief to task. He pointed out their errors and omissions in an article published on the George Mason University's History News Network. I discussed this article in the post "Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional". I contacted Mr. Young this morning, and this is some of what he had to say:

I was somewhat disappointed that this ended up a 5-4 split because the historical information directly contradicts the minority. Obviously, the minority have relied on the information provided to them in the pro-DC briefs. I urge those who want to understand why the gun control supporters' briefs are misleading to read my analysis of them, especially that of the professional historians that was published by the History News Network at http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html. With briefs like that to rely on, no wonder gun control advocates accept as true what the historical sources directly contradict.

I will join with David and urge you to read his analysis on the brief that the dissenters of the court relied upon for their dissent.

I'm off to play with grand kids, they have been very patient with me so far.

More on DC v Heller to come.

Introducing "On Second Opinion"

I am very pleased to announce that David E. Young has entered the blogging universe. David is the author of The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment and The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792.

David's blog is called "On Second Opinion" and is best described in his own words:

On Second Opinion is for true Second Amendment buffs - those interested in historical information and those looking for documented deconstruction of the control advocates historical arguments. I am launching On Second Opinion with a series documenting a number of errors and misleading arguments in the professional historians' Heller amicus brief supporting Washington DC. The idea is to address each error of fact and misleading assertion it contains separately in a relatively short post. At the end of this series, there will be a hopefully short critique on the entirely misleading nature of the brief.

I realize not all that many pro-rights people are as interested in the Second Amendment's historical details as myself. For those that take an interest, On Second Opinion will be very beneficial because knowledge is power. It will provide documented evidence to prove that the historical arguments of control advocates are not only without historical foundation but also directly contradicted by the period facts.

His first post is The Root Cause of Never-ending Second Amendment Dispute. What are you waiting for? Head on over and give it a read.

History and Founders Intent

Are you interested in the history of the Second Amendment?  Do you think it is important to understand the founders intent when they were writing the Second Amendment and including it in the Bill of Rights?  If so then you will be happy to know that David E. Young, one of the foremost authorities on this subject, is back to blogging.  On Second Opinion Blog is David's portal to sharing his wealth of information with the rest of us.  His post  "Second Amendment Intent / Right to Keep and Bear Arms Explained" is a good starting point on your quest to delve in to the history of the Second Amendment.  As David has said:

The facts of American history can end the never-ending dispute over Second Amendment intent, but only if they are understood and deployed to undermine and counteract the error based belief system of gun control proponents.

Head on over and learn some facts, facts that have helped the Supreme Court rule in favor of our right to keep and bear arms.

Notes From the Sidebar

David comments on yet Another Bloodthirsty Gun Owner.  This time it's an armed wheelchair-bound Vet who uses a firearm to defend life and home.

The Bayou Renaissance Man has found some Relics of a long forgotten war.  There are some very interesting images of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos.

Let’s talk about background checks. Yes, we really do need to start focusing on potential mandatory background check legislation now that some prominent Republicans are starting to support this type of legislation.

The Old NFO has one example of a pro-gun argument that doesn't rely on "It's in the Constitution!" that effectively makes our point.  More Equal time... delves into the facts about the pre and post Australian gun ban statistics.  One that I found especially interesting is "Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women."  Disarming the law abiding increases the victim pool for the violent.

Traction Control notes that Michael Bane Points Out “A Brilliant Article …” An excellent read.

Speaking of Michael Bane, the old coot things that The New World Sucks.  Codger keeps reminiscing about the good old days, way back in October of last year.

If you are looking for Sources on Original Second Amendment Meaning, History, Purpose, and Intent, there really is not better place to go than David E. Young's On Second Opinion Blog.

Brigid writes a moving post On Waiting - A Story of Adoption.

The Carteach posts a review of a Dragon Leatherworks Gunbelt..... Next to a quality holster, your belt is an indispensable part of your carry rig.  Quality counts.

Frank, a new contributor to The Firearm Blog, introduces himself with 40 Years of Gun Wisdom in 5 Easy Lessons. I am looking forward to reading more of what Frank has to share.

The LawDog offers A repost of his "Gun Control Cake" essay.  If you did not catch it the first time, head on over and read it now.   

Mike points out that there is a Direct Link Between Algeria Attack that Killed 3 Americans and Libya Attack that Killed 4.  Amateur hour at the State Department and in our Administration is helping to create this escalation of chaos.  A Republican President would have been forced to resign in embarrassment by now.  

Say Uncle refutes Noted Gun Expert Carolyn McCarthy: It’s Too Hard For Women To Use AR-15s.  He has some nice video to help make his case.  

And last, but not least, Murdoc offers a warning about The Stephen King eBook ‘Guns’.  If you want to put money in the pockets of the Brady Bunch, buy the book.

The Second Amendment and the Modern World

David E. Young has written a post that covers, in a nutshell, the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment based on the original understanding, and how that purpose fits into the modern world.

The Mason Triad Context of Second Amendment Development and Purpose

A snipped from his post to catch your interest:

The citizens in 1789 relied on flintlock firearms just as the soldiers of a period army. At that time, a standing army in time of peace was the face of tyranny. Today, the face of tyranny is just as common in the world, but is much more intrusive and dangerous, and is usually referred to as a police state. Americans have the constitutional right and duty to prevent the establishment of any police state in the United States. The people must keep their government under their control, which is accomplished, not by fighting, which is only a last resort, but by making certain that violations of the Constitution by those at the helm of government are challenged and reversed.

We the people have a duty and a responsibility to challenge violations to our Constitution.  We have been derelict in our duties.

Evil IS

David over at The War on Guns posted a link to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the Amish school house shooting that left five young girls dead, and five more in the hospital. The Goblin (I hate to use the word man when taking about him) was evil personified. What kind of person can plan and carry out such an act? How do we, as society protect ourselves from such a person?

In the comments to David's post, E. David Quammen of GunShowOnTheNet made a statement that I wish I had written:

Don't know if I have the words to express how I feel. Sean did a good job. All I can bring myself to wonder is how the hell does someone allow themselves to get THAT EVIL? What is going through their mind?

The anti's will do their blood dance. The sheeple will bleat for more 'protection' and further government intrusions. At the cost of more of our Freedoms and Liberties being lost, of course. And this despite clear evidence to the contrary, that further infringements will only make things worse.

What is really frustrating, is that even many of our fellow gun owners will nod their heads in agreement that more 'controls' are necessary. How many gun owners actual first thought was; 'I wish I'd had been there, he'd have been dead after the first or second shot'?

Was not the founders whole intent for an armed populace, keeping evil at bay? From whatever source it might arise, whether it be foreign or domestic? Was not each citizen expected to do their part?

Is not that sound reasoning? How is it then, that so many are blinded to this fact, and refuse to accept the truth?

Our, supposed, 'civilization' is in a very bad state of affairs. When common sense is given such little regard, how much longer will our society survive?

One responsible armed citizen, aware of their duty as a citizen, could have stopped this tragedy with one shot.

The people whom have shrilly cried for 'gun control' are directly, and indirectly, responsible for this and other tragedys. The blood belongs on their hands. Not on the people that would have acted, had they not been perversely restrained from doing so. It's time to pull the kid gloves off, and really start slamming the truth home, hard. And this, while we still have some semblance of a society worth fighting for. The consequence of not doing so, will lead to anarchy and totalitarian control...

There is evil in this world. There are goblins that prey upon the innocent. It is our duty and responsibility to stand against this evil, not just for ourselves and our family, but for society as a whole.