Re: Second Amendment Research Center

The Second Amendment Research Center is part of the John Glenn Institute at
The Ohio State University. It has been funded by a grant of approximately
$380,000 by the Joyce Foundation to research the Second Amendment. The head
of the Center is historian Saul Cornell, who seems rather biased against an
individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Prof. Cornell has described the Second Amendment as protecting an individual
right which must be collectively exercised. You will have to check with him
exactly what that is supposed to mean in plain English. Note that the term
"collective" still shows up even though the good professor claims not to
subscribe to the collective rights model.

The Joyce Foundation has funded a lot of gun control advocacy over the
years. Prof. Cornell has admitted that funding would have to come from a
different source for any research into the individual rights intepretation
by the Center. In other words, the actual descriptive name of the Center
should be: The Second Amendment Collective Rights Research Center. Prof.
Cornell would of course take issue with this because the Center does post on
its website citations to opposing points of view regarding the Second

The Center, IMHO, is an attempt to add legitimacy to the failing
anti-individual rights interpretations by an appeal to historical authority.

This trend started with the Joyce Foundation funding of the Chicago-Kent Law
Review Symposium on the Second Amendment in 1999. The grant was apparently
requested by law Prof. Carl Bogus to counteract the numerous "Standard
Model" (individual rights) intepreters of the Second Amendment. The impetus
for this was the Emerson Decision at the District Court level in Texas. The
judge in that case ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right and the Federal Law denying firearms possession to anyone with a
protective order against them was unconstitutional. The Law Review Symposium
was an attempt to influence public policy by influencing the Courts with
materials intended to counteract the Standard Model interpretation. The
immediate target was to influence the Emerson case if appealed to the
Circuit Court level, and beyond that any other latter cases involving the
Second Amendment. (It was very influential later in the Silveira Decision
from the 9th Circuit).

Prof. Bogus replaced the normal editor of the Chi-Kent Review for the Second
Amendment Symposium issue, and invited only collective rights (defined here
as those opposed to an individual rights intepretation) advocates to present
their papers. Everyone involved was handsomely rewarded for their efforts.
The papers of the Review were also bound into book form and industriously
distributed to members of the legal community. The intent was to bring some
names from the historical community into the decades old Second Amendment
debate to bolster the outnumbered collective rightist legal scholars. The
Second Amendment Research Center and funding of Saul Cornell are a further
step along this line of influencing public policy by appeal to hisotical
authority funded by the Joyce Foundation.

What the Joyce Foundation funded historians are doing who have delved into
this so far is making what is already a needlessly confusing situation much
more so. It seems as if they are interested in finding every sentence in the
English language with the word militia in it to try and help explain their
very complex understanding of what the Second Amendment is all about. Some
of the materials they have discussed are so remotely and tenuously related
to the U.S. Bill of Rights and Second Amendment as to be quite humoruous. At
the same time they almost studiously avoid historical materials from the
Bill of Rights period in the United States. Also, it appears that the Center
is going to collect every historical law relating to arms which has ever
been passed in America in order to try and show that the Second Amendment
does not mean what it clearly says.

What do lawyers do when they do not have a case? - Obfuscate.
What do historians do who do not have a viable understanding of an issue but
are emotioanlly involved - Make it complex so no one else can understand it
like they do.

Now you are possibly getting the picture. The cloudier the picture is, the
more some people like it. Large amounts of money always help in making the
picture much more cloudy.

Read the Founders own words from the Bill of Rights period which resulted in
the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment. It sure beats reading about the
passage of militia laws in early Great Britain, which is where some of the
Joyce Foundation funded professional historians have been trying their
hardest to drag everyone's attention.

David E. Young deyoung1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment:
Cited over 100 times in the Emerson Decision

"Bert Hyman" <bert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> In news:meydnZiVQK50QxHenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx "Karl Hungus"
> <karlhungus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Anyone ever heard of these guys before? I hadn't . . .
> >
> >
> It's a gun-control "think tank" funded by the Joyce Foundation.
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@xxxxxxxxxxx