Saturday, September 19, 2015

New Paper

The gun control crowd for a long time has asserted that the Statute of Northampton (1328) prohibited anyone but the king's servants from being armed in public, and are using this to argue that the Second Amendment does not require issuance of carry permits.  You can read my paper demolishing this claim here.  Typos etc. I would love to know about.


MaggieL said...

"Bookmark not defined" Errors in the footnotes on page 4:

Malcolm, infra note Error! Bookmark not defined., at 134 (emphasis added) (quoting William Blizard, Desultory
Reflections on Police: With an Essay on the Means of Preventing Crime and Amending Criminals 59-60 (1785)). Also,
see 49 LONDON MAG. 290 (1780) for the opinion of the “recorder and counsel… that every housekeeper was a militiaman,
and had a right to bear arms…”
14 Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (1994), at 166 (emphasis
added) (quoting William Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police: With an Essay on the Means of Preventing Crime and
Amending Criminals 59-60 (1785)).
15 Id. at 166-68.
16 Id. at 168. Sixty-seven years later, motivated by similar working class efforts to correct social ills, the United States
Supreme Court would make approximately the same distinction. See Cramer, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.,
at 128-34 (discussing Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), and similar prohibitions on labor union militias).

Clayton Cramer said...

Thanks. I copied the footnote from another document, and the bookmark did not come through.

Jim Dunmyer said...

Clicked the link and got:

SSRN Abstract Database Search Results

The abstract you requested was not found.
Please check your search criteria and try again.

A search by author Clayton Cramer turned up 18 papers, but that wasn't one of them...???

Clayton Cramer said...

Jim: try again. I had forgotten to click something on submission.

keathwarlick said...

Excellent work as usual... the only thing I noticed (not sure if this is a concern at all) was that the font was sometimes inconsistent (e.g., p. 3).

Rich Rostrom said...

Footnotes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7: for some reason are in black.

Footnote 1: missing space: "theSecond".

Footnote 2: extra space: "William Blackstone , 2 COMMENTARIES"

Footnote 8: "8" is in a smaller font than other footnote numbers.

Page 6: "Governor’s Andros’s report"

Page 8: malformed ellipsis: "on Account of the Indians. . . . .”31"

Page 8: comma should be colon: "by stagecoach with slave-dealers, “Their diversion"

Footnote 28: wrongly indented, partly in black.

Footnote 36: doubled comma: "Frederic Austin Ogg, ed.,, 1906"

Page 10: inconsistent spelling: "at a toll gate. The owner of the tollgate..."

Footnote 40: doubled comma, missing space: "Cartwright,,supra note 39, at 201."

Footnote 41: missing comma: "Cartwright supra note 39, at 206."

Page 11: excess comma: "The testimony included that Rep. Stanbery, “had a consultation..."

Footnote 51: doubled comma: "Yoseloff, ed.,, 1961"

Footnote 53: excess "2" or missing space: "Frederick Law Olmsted,2 THE"; doubled comma: "and Charles Capen McLaughlin, ed.,,"; excess comma: "1981),.

Page 13: misplaced period: "Amendment55. If"

Page 13: garbled sentence: "not only did English case law in Serjeant Hawkins case reject such a wide reading"

Footnote 54: missing final period.

Footnote 55: excess period: " Nunn."; capitalization error: " V. State".

Page 14: misplaced right parenthesis: "until 1786)58, ".

Clayton Cramer said...

Awesome. Thanks.

Billy Oblivion said...

The 2nd amendment doesn't *require* the issuance of CCW permits.

You can carry w/out one :)

Clayton Cramer said...

Billy: It depends on the state unless you are willing to risk arrest. The results of states abandoning licensing are pretty good, but the worryworts are still a majority. It makes them feel "safe" to know that there were background checks.