|
Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns (Inalienable Rights) | 
 enlarge | Author: Mark V. Tushnet
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
List Price: $19.95
Buy New: $14.96
You Save: $4.99 (25%)
New (36) Used (24) from $4.43
Rating:  4 reviews
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 176
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.7
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.6 x 0.9
ISBN: 0195304241
Dewey Decimal Number: 344.730533
EAN: 9780195304244
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Few constitutional disputes maintain as powerful a grip on the public mind as the battle over the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association and gun-control groups struggle unceasingly over a piece of the political landscape that no candidate for the presidency--and few for Congress--can afford to ignore. But who's right? Will it ever be possible to settle the argument?
In Out of Range, one of the nation's leading legal scholars takes a calm, objective look at this bitter debate. Mark V. Tushnet brings to this book a deep expertise in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the role of the law in American life. He breaks down the different positions on the Second Amendment, showing that it is a mistake to stereotype them. Tushnet's exploration is honest and nuanced; he finds the constitutional arguments finely balanced, which is one reason the debate has raged for so long. Along the way, he examines various experiments in public policy, from both sides, and finds little clear evidence for the practical effectiveness of any approach to gun safety and prosecution. Of course, he notes, most advocates of the right to keep and bear arms agree that it should be subject to reasonable regulation. Ultimately, Tushnet argues, our view of the Second Amendment reflects our sense of ourselves as a people. The answer to the debate will not be found in any holy writ, but in our values and our vision of the nation.
This compact, incisive examination offers an honest and thoughtful guide to both sides of the argument, pointing the way to solutions that could calm, if not settle, this bitter dispute.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Good primer July 6, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Not a bad addition, a fairly cool analysis to an overheated debate item. The author will probably not please many people, as he concludes that the constitution really does not say a whole lot about modern gun restrictions, taking swipes at both pro and anti gun arguments. This book is short and not particularly in-depth on references.
 Rudimentary April 26, 2008
0 out of 7 found this review helpful
This book offers no insight for those who are well informed on the subject matter. So if you have kept up on your history and legal arguments on the issue, don't bother buying this book. The footnotes take up maybe 10 pages, showing the author did not really do any historical or legal research of his own, especially in the history dept. There is an abundance of primary sources available, ie congressional records, military affairs records, individual papers and the like which he could have drawn on to have come to an accurate historical picture. It is true that both arguments have a somewhat valid argument, and they have been clouded by their political outlook, but the same can be said for the Supreme Court. The oral arguments on the issue were nothing more than a political disagreement between justices. What is worse, is Scalia interjected throughout the arguments supporting the individual rights theory. That really does not support justice in its truest sense. I gave him two stars because his ultimate conclusion is right--that the outcome won't make a difference on gun control except for complete firearm bans. That still leaves open a wide array of restrictions that could be imposed. There is nothing in the consitution barring the restriction of gun purchasing, ownership, and use.
 Disappointed. March 21, 2008
7 out of 9 found this review helpful
I considered purchasing this book until I read page six, where the author suggests that the Fourth Amendment ("the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects") refers to something other than an individual right. When taken in the proper context (U.S. citizens in the United States, not foreign nationals and property in Mexico), it is obvious that this suggestion would be inappropriate in any attempt to undermine the pure individual rights model of the Second Amendment. See Minnesota v. Carter, where the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the language of the Fourth Amendment "indicates that [it] is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual," 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). Thus I decided to forego this purchase.
 Required Reading September 27, 2007
3 out of 9 found this review helpful
I actually got a chance to read the manuscript. Typical Tushnet. I.e., smart, incisive, scrupulously fair. If you want to cut through the overheated rhetoric you're going to hear in the next few months -- assuming the Court grants DC's cert petition in the gun control case -- you should read this book. Actually, you should read if you're at all interested in the gun control debate.
|
|
|
|
Powered by CBN AssociateStore
| |
