New 2A 'Collective Right' Essay Under Fire

Clayton Cramer and Dave Kopel have some strong thoughts on a new anti-individual 2A right essay written by Nathan Kozuskanich. Kozuskanich, you should know, is associated with the anti-gun "research center" that uses The Ohio State University's John Glenn public policy center for cover and credibility.

Mr. Kozuskanich's mentor is Saul Cornell, the professor who has written a number of books critical of the concept that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to a firearm. Mr. Cornell rarely comes out of the university community to talk about his work. Most of his appearances to talk about his research are at local churches. Cornell is one of the 15 "historians" who filed an amicus brief in the Heller case, which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18. David Young recently wrote of the problems with this brief, and his opinion of the numerous incorrect assumptions of the "historians" who signed on to the document.

Says Cramer: " . . . It appears that Kozuskanich's Rutgers Law Journal article came out some months back, but I have just found it and read it. It is a very detailed and interesting discussion of the struggles between the Quakers and non-Quakers of Pennsylvania over whether to have a Colonial militia or not -- but as evidence to support Kozuskanich's claims about "bear arms," it is embarrassingly bad.

"He cites Bellesiles' Arming America in note 38 as a source for the claim that guns were pretty scarce. He then tells the reader, "For more detailed studies of gun numbers that contradict Bellesiles" and cites the Lindgren & Heather paper in William and Mary Law Review, and Randolph Roth's William and Mary Quarterly paper. At no point does Kozuskanich acknowledge that Bellesiles was not simply wrong, but a fraud. Bellesiles's own university investigated the allegations--and issued a report so critical that Bellesiles resigned a tenured position. Columbia University had given Bellesiles the Bancroft Prize for Arming America--and then revoked it (something that had never happened before) because of falsifications of the probate data that underlay Bellesiles's claim about gun scarcity."

Ouch! These days, citing Bellesiles in the positive will torpedo your credibility in a heartbeat.

Says Kopel: "For example, Kozuskanich points to the prosecution of Dr. James Reynolds for "assault with intent to commit murder." Kozuskanich claims that the prosecution proves that Pennsylvania's constitutional right to arms did not apply to individual self-defense.But as Cramer notes, Dr. Reynolds was never charged with a crime for his mere carrying of the pistol; he was charged with a crime because he pointed the pistol and threatened to shoot someone.

"The book American State Trials observes that Reynolds "contented himself with carrying a pistol. And in this he was justified by every law, human and divine." Certainly no-one at the trial contended otherwise; so Kozuskanich's claim that the prosecution for attempted homicide proves that there was no individual right to own and carry guns is implausible."

It is worth your time to click on all the links and read for yourself. Check out the comments, too.

As far as why a Second Amendment "research" center at a major university would be so one-sided in its research and findings, simply follow the Joyce Foundation money trail and see the company the OSU center keeps.

h/t to David Hardy