Quick Kopel thoughts on Heller

Due to server problems, I haven't been able to log in to post anything until moments ago. My initial impressions on the Heller decisions and its implications are here, in a Pajamas Media article. I also did a 14-minute podcast about Heller on Tomorrow I'll have a piece on the Human Events website looking at some of the political background for the case. Later today, I'll be writing a short item for Reason's Hit & Run weblog and something longer for Scotusblog.

It is a great honor to be part of the VC, whose thoughtful analysis of the opinion today has been the best in the world. As readers of Heller already know, Eugene Volokh is cited thrice in the majority opinion--and the Second Amendment isn't even his main area of scholarly research. Kudos also to Jim Lindgren, whose Yale Law Journal article demolished the Michael Bellisiles fraud book Arming America, a book which, if the fraud had not been exposed, might have gravely misled the historically-minded Court.

Finally, for those of you are counting VC cites, my brief for a law enforcement coalition International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association (ILEETA) is cited four times in Justice Breyer's dissent, as part of his presentation of the pro/con data on handguns.

David E. Young (mail) (www):
I would like to thank Dave Kopel, not only for his copious writings supporting our Second Amendment rights in general, but also for his numerous attempts to get others to peruse my document collection, The Origin of the Second Amendment.

Dave reviewed ORIGIN at least four different times that I am aware of and was proven right by the U.S Supreme Court regarding it being an essential collection for those interested in the Second Amendment. It was cited several times in the Heller decision today.
6.26.2008 11:31pm
subpatre (mail):
I'm still wading theough the decision. But congratulations . . . and thanks for the decades of work.
6.26.2008 11:33pm
James Lindgren (mail):
Kudos to you Dave as well -- and thanks for the generous comments. You've devoted far more time, effort, and analysis to this issue than I have.

Leaving aside the potential influence of Arming America itself (which you note), I do think that the "historian's brief" carried much less weight than it would have because of the inability of so many of its signatories to judge Arming America fairly.
6.27.2008 12:46am
I hope you are all getting royalties, it seems to me that that many cites goes way beyond fair use.
6.27.2008 1:47am
Hey, do I get points for the treatise I'm on being cited in Rothgery on Monday? Maybe 1/2 credit? Not like I wrote the part that was cited, but hey, I just want to be part of the cool crowd.
6.27.2008 2:56am