The Meaning Of "Fisk" and "Fisking"

Updated August 24, 2017
Fisk means fact check, and fisking is the act of documenting specific statements as factually incorrect and publishing the proof, which normally consists of relevant documents directly contradicting the erroneous statement.

On Second Opinion Blog is an excellent example of fisking. It commenced on January 25, 2009 to fisk, or fact check, the Second Amendment related arguments relied upon as authoritative by supporters of gun control. The specific statements that require fisking are those of the fifteen professional historians who backed up Justice Stevens' 2008 District of Columbia vs Heller Supreme Court dissent arguing that the Second Amendment was not intended to protect individual rights.

The initial On Second Opinion article was appropriately titled, Root Causes Of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute Part 1, and the series ran to twenty-four fiskings. That there is any dispute today about Second Amendment history and intent is largely attributable to the fifteen mistaken academics who signed the Heller brief written by historian Jack Rakove of Stanford. Sixteen numbered errors of fact are documented in the Root Causes series along with extensive information essential for proper interpretation ignored by the historians and directly contradicting their Heller brief assertions.

At the top of this page is a link, Fisking Index Page, which provides direct access to each of the twenty-four articles in the Root Causes Of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute series. There are also other series listed, and one, Justice Stevens' Train Wreck Of American History, includes fisking of Justice Stevens' dissent itself. The historians' error problems carry right over into the Stevens dissent. Every relevant aspect of the historians' Heller brief and Justice Stevens' Heller dissent are based upon fallacious conflation, historical error, and misinterpretation.

The truth is out there - right here. Find out the documented facts of Second Amendment history. See if your belief system is factually founded and can withstand fisking, or if it has no relationship to reality whatsoever, like the Heller historians and Justice Stevens, and you have been brainwashed.

The District of Columbia vs Heller Dissent - Part 3

Justice Stevens' Off Track

American History 

     In addition to the sources presented in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, there are others from the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention proving Justice Stevens' Heller dissent to be in error regarding Second Amendment intent. The founders who developed and adopted the Amendment's immediate predecessor viewed it in a completely different light than Justice Stevens, a fact that is evident from their bill of rights discussion within the convention.
     On June 16, 1788, Patrick Henry and George Mason both gave speeches regarding the need for a federal bill of rights. Henry set up their upcoming arguments by reading six specific provisions from Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights: 
"Mr. Henry moved to read from the 8th to the 13th article of the declaration of rights; which was done." 
[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.434]
     Those specific articles of Virginia's state bill of rights included predecessors of protections later included in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The well regulated militia language of Virginia's ratifying convention Article 17, which Justice Stevens erroneously conflated, was copied verbatim by George Mason from this 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights Article 13 original: 
"13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;"
 [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.434]
     Interestingly, both Patrick Henry and George Mason were members of the drafting committee in the Revolutionary Era convention that adopted this 1776 Virginia well regulated militia clause as part of America's first state bill of rights over a decade earlier. Mason was acknowledged as its author by the other delegates. In the modern dispute over meaning of well regulated militia clause language in American bills of rights, the comments of Mason and Henry are essential for determining period understanding because they originated the language in 1776 and utilized what they originated again later verbatim in 1788 as model U.S. Bill of Rights language. Their 1788 bill of rights comments directly contradict the Heller dissent Second Amendment intent argument.
     Mason spoke first on the bill of rights subject, explaining his understanding of Virginia's state bill of rights and the general purpose of the specific provisions Henry had read shortly before, which included the original well regulated militia clause: 
"there were certain great and important rights, which the people, by their bill of rights, declared to be paramount to the power of the legislature. . . .it was necessary that the great rights of human nature should be secure from the encroachments of the legislature, . . ."
[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.436]
     Henry followed Mason indicating the general need for the protections he had read to be added in a federal a bill of rights: 
"You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, . . . and yet you have none against Congress," 
[The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp.437-438] 
     Patrick Henry and George Mason both understood Virginia's 1776 well regulated militia clause as a restriction on state government power. Prior to making the above statements in Virginia's ratifying convention, they had already inserted an exact quote of that clause into their Antifederalist committee model U.S. Bill of Rights, which was developed by assembling existing state bill of rights limitations on state government into a new Federal bill of rights of limitations on the power of the proposed Federal Government.
[See The Founders View of the Right to Bear Arms, pp.61-66 for more detailed history and citations regarding the origin of Virginia's well regulated militia clause.] 
     Contrary to the view of the framers who originated the well regulated militia clause in 1776, and who described and adopted it again in 1788, Justice Stevens, as documented in Part 1, conflated the clause's intent into protection for state authority. Early in his dissent, after quoting the Second Amendment's first clause, Justice Stevens directly quotes Virginia's 1776 language as evidence that the founders' intent matches his understanding of protecting “state militias”: 
"“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
The preamble . . . is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5 Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias:"

[Heller dissent, pp.5-6] 
"5 The Virginia Declaration of Rights ¶ 13 (1776) provided: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State:"
[Heller dissent, p.5, note 5]

     The Heller dissent uses the 1776 Virginia Article 13 well regulated militia language to support its argument the Second Amendment's militia clause was intended to protect state power. The framers responsible for its development and inclusion in Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights described the purpose of Article 13 as exactly the opposite, a limit on state power. This is another clear example demonstrating the direct conflict between Justice Stevens' opinion, expressed in his Heller dissent, and the documented views of the “founding generation” he bends into alignment with his own beliefs.
     The framing founders responsible for the 1776 language understood it as a limit on state power protecting a militia composed of the people, or in other words, protecting an armed populace. These drafting founders used the 1776 language again in the 1788 immediate predecessor of the Second Amendment with the clear intention of limiting the Federal Government in the same way it limited the state government, by protecting a militia of the people. Justice Stevens is totally confused about the meaning of this language, and his Heller dissent arguments are not only factually unfounded, but directly contradicted by the period evidence.

[In Part 4, George Mason's use of well regulated militia language in Virginia prior to writing the concept into that state's bill of rights is examined and documented, further demonstrating the off-track nature of Justice Stevens' Heller dissent.]

The District of Columbia vs Heller Dissent - Part 2

Justice Stevens' Sidelined

American History 

[Updated May 26, 2015]
Part 1  documented Justice Stevens' Heller dissent Second Amendment intent argument is founded on a conflation error because it directly conflicts with the statements of George Mason, the Ratification Era framer of its two-clause language. The dissent also linked the intent of Mason's Virginia Ratifying Convention Second Amendment proposal to those of North Carolina and New York, extensions of the conflation error to those sources.

     The Second Amendment proposals of all three states were based on the original two-clause Second Amendment version in George Mason's U.S. Bill of Rights model. The Virginia convention's sole alteration of Mason's language was dropping the word “to” before “bear arms” in its first clause. [1] North Carolina adopted Virginia's proposals verbatim and refused to ratify the Constitution until they were added. [2]
1 [See Part 1 for Virginia's version and below for Mason's original.]
2 [The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp.503-506]
     New York's Second Amendment predecessor, found in its ratification declaration of rights, was very similar to the other two states. It was based directly on Mason's original model. This resulted from George Mason providing New York's Antifederalist leaders a complete copy of his model for the U.S. Bill of Rights developed early in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, which met from June 2 through June 27, 1788. 

     The documents addressed below consist of Mason's U.S. Bill of Rights model [3], a partially developed list of Mason's "other" amendments [4], and letters from Patrick Henry, William Grayson, and George Mason, Virginia Convention Antifederalist leaders, to John Lamb, Antifederalist leader in New York City. These sources independently confirm the conflation error Justice Stevens' Heller dissent is founded upon.
3 [The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp.388-390]
4 [Mason Papers, Vol. III, pp.1055-1057]
     John Lamb sent letters to Mason, Henry, and Grayson seeking cooperation on a bill of rights and other amendments to the U.S. Constitution between Antifederalists in the New York and Virginia conventions. These were delivered on June 7, 1788, and all three Virginians responded affirmatively to Lamb on June 9. Mason, chairman of the amendments committee, included the complete model Bill of Rights and partial list of the amendments then under development with his letter. These letters and documents were transmitted to Lamb by Eleazer Oswald, the same special courier Lamb employed to hand deliver his requests regarding cooperation to the Virginians.

[For historical facts not specifically cited in this part, see the history and citations regarding Virginia-New York Ratifying Convention amendment cooperation found in The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, pp.131-147]
     Patrick Henry's letter described the documents sent to Lamb as follows: 

"We have concluded to send you by Colo. Oswald a copy of the Bill of Rights & of the particular Amendments we intend to propose in our Convention". 
[Mason Papers, Vol. III, p.1071 note]
     The Bill of Rights was finalized and consisted entirely of provisions taken from existing state declarations of rights. The particular amendments list was still under development and related to alterations of specific parts of the proposed U.S. Constitution.
     William Grayson emphasized the incomplete nature of the particular amendments list:
"some of our proposed amendments are finished in the Committee; the others will be forwarded as soon as agreed on". 
[Mason Papers, Vol. III, p.1071 note]
     The particular or "other" amendments list sent to Lamb consisted of thirteen unnumbered provisions, five of which were not even included in the final twenty article version Patrick Henry introduced in Virginia on June 24. The amendments sent on June 9 were very much in a developmental state because analyzing, discussing and agreeing upon possible amendments to particular Constitutional provisions took considerable time and continued throughout Virginia's month long convention.
     That the Bill of Rights was completed very early in Virginia's convention, probably the first day or two, is not surprising because Mason himself had described the speed with which one could be developed the previous year in the Federal Convention:
“He wished the plan had been prefaced with a bill of rights, and would second a motion, if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people, and, with the aid of the state declarations, a bill of rights might be prepared in a few hours". 
[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.12]
     Mason's 1788 Bill of Rights sent to Lamb fit this description exactly as it was essentially a copy of the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights with some added provisions from other state declarations.
     The Bill of Rights model's original two-clause Second Amendment predecessor sent to John Lamb on June 9 read: 
“17. That the People have a Right to keep & to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to Arms, is the proper natural and safe Defence of a free State;” 
[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.390]
     Mason's June 9 letter to Lamb mentioned several parts of the Constitution to be addressed by his amendments committee in the future. This information, just as that in Part 1, establishes the direct conflict between the Founders' understanding and the Heller dissent argument regarding Second Amendment intent due to conflation.
"The Judiciary, the exclusive Legislative Power over the ten Miles Square, and the Militia, are Subjects to which our Attention will next be turned, and we shall communicate the Result of our Deliberations with all possible Dispatch." 
[Mason Papers III, p.1058]
     Mason and the amendments committee members understood they had addressed no amendments of the Constitution's militia powers as of June 9, and that none were included among the documents sent to John Lamb. The fact that the original two-clause Second Amendment predecessor was sent to Lamb as part of the model Bill of Rights on that date clearly indicates it was not understood by its framers as relating to amending the militia powers, which is the erroneous view advanced in Justice Stevens' dissent. These facts document and further exemplify the direct conflict between the founders' view of the Second Amendment and that advanced by the dissenting Heller justices.
     The period evidence presented here is entirely consistent with that in Part 1, and it independently verifies the conflation error the Heller dissent is based upon. As a result of this erroneous historical foundation, the dissenting Heller justices treat all period historical sources with well regulated militia language as support for their argument.
     Every Revolutionary and Ratification Era bill of rights predecessor of the Second Amendment with well regulated militia language is presented somewhere in the Heller dissent as supporting its opinion of intent. Since the dissent view of period well regulated militia language is based on erroneous conflation, use of closely related historical examples results in repeated conflation errors. The only evidence offered to verify the dissenting justices assertions regarding intent are appeals to their own authority, another type of fallacious argument. The Heller dissent view of Second Amendment intent is an interwoven series of fallacious appeals to its own authority based on error of fact due to conflation. The end result is a circular argument in which the very language at the heart of Second Amendment dispute, historical well regulated militia sources, are repeatedly offered as proof the dissent is factually correct.
     The Second Amendment intent argument in Justice Stevens' Heller dissent is entirely undermined by relevant period historical sources, which demonstrate it is founded on factual error.
[In Part 3, the understanding of Second Amendment framer George Mason regarding well regulated militia language will be examined, further documenting the sidelined American history nature of Justice Stevens' Heller dissent.]

The District of Columbia vs Heller Dissent - Part 1

Justice Stevens' Train Wreck

of American History

     The Supreme Court's 2008 District of Columbia vs Heller case resulted in a 5-4 split decision. Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion, held that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Justice Stevens penned a historically related dissent supported by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter arguing it protected something entirely different, the militia institutions of the states. Justice Breyer, commenting on the Heller dissent in December of 2010, stated that "historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us." [1] This last September, Justice Ginsburg, referencing the dissent indicated that her "view of the Second Amendment is one based on history." [2] The problem for the dissenting Heller justices is that the historical sources they quote not only fail to support their arguments, but instead directly contradict and prove them to be completely wrong.

   To begin unraveling the Heller dissenters strongly held views, the first point to determine is what specific period sources Justice Stevens and colleagues provide demonstrating the Founders understood the Second Amendment's purpose as they do? The sole period historical link in the dissent between the Second Amendment and any founder's understanding that it was intended to protect state militia authority is a quote of George Mason speaking in the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14, 1788. As Mason was chairman of the convention's Antifederalist amendments committee, he was the perfect choice for determining such understanding. [3] He developed the Bill of Rights and list of twenty "other" proposed amendments that were introduced by Patrick Henry and adopted by the Virginia Ratifying Convention.[4] North Carolina adopted the language of the Virginia proposals verbatim, [5] and New York included very similar declaration of rights provisions within its ratification based directly on Mason's proposals.[6] Thus, George Mason was author of the state ratifying convention model for the U.S. Bill of Rights - the ideal founder to quote regarding the intent of its provisions.

[3] The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, p.132]

[4] The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp.450, 456-462]

[5] Origin, pp.503-508]

[6] Origin, pp.480-483; The Founders' View, pp.149-153]
     The subject under discussion by the Virginia Convention delegates on June 14 was the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 powers - in this specific case, the militia powers. In order to link its understanding of the Second Amendment to that of Mason, the Heller dissent presents this selection from his speech warning that the states could be deprived of power to arm the militia under the new U.S. Constitution: 

“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has the exclusive right to arm them.” 
[Heller Dissent, p.20]
     Following this quote, the dissent discusses the two-clause Second Amendment predecessors from the last three state ratifying conventions of 1788 as if they relate to the militia powers subject Mason was discussing: 
"But a number of States did propose to the first Federal Congress amendments reflecting a desire to ensure that the institution of the militia would remain protected under the new Government. The proposed amendments sent by the States of Virginia, North Carolina,and New York focused on the importance of preserving the state militias and reiterated the dangers posed by standing armies." 
[Heller Dissent, p.20]
     The next quote appearing in the dissent is Virginia's proposed Bill of Rights Second Amendment predecessor, described thus in the dissent: 
"The relevant proposals sent by the Virginia Ratifying Convention read as follows: “17th, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.""

[Heller Dissent, p.21]
     Members of Congress developed the Second Amendment's clauses directly from this 1788 predecessor language. The dissenting justices clearly believe their Mason quote directly related to it. However, the dissenters' Mason quote actually contradicts their views. Why? Because the dissent ignores the fact that Mason did not propose the Second Amendment predecessor in his June 14th speech. In fact, he never mentioned any Second Amendment related predecessor or language in relation to the militia powers subject under discussion that day. He did, however, propose an entirely different amendment directly addressing the subject of his speech that the dissent simply ignored.
     This is the militia powers amendment Mason proposed on June 14: 
"I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part"

[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.402. Mason's entire June 14 speech on this subject can be found on pp.400-402 in The Origin of the Second Amendment.]
     The dissenting justices not only overlooked Mason's actual proposal from June 14, above, they also completely ignored Article 11 in Mason's list of "other" amendments adopted by the Virginia Ratifying Convention that directly related to his militia powers proposal and speech: 
"11th. That each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same."

[The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.460]
     George Mason's June 14, 1788 speech not only fails to support the dissent view of Second Amendment's intent, it proves the Heller dissent to be completely wrong about its intent. Mason's state militia power proposal of that date directly related to Article 11 of the "other" amendments proposed by Virginia, not to the Second Amendment predecessor. Since Mason prepared all of Virginia's amendments, and because he indicated the Article 11 related protection was the only change needed to the militia arming powers, it is clear the Second Amendment proposal from Virginia was not understood by him as protecting state militia authority. In an erroneous attempt to demonstrate Mason's view matched those of the dissenting Heller justices, the dissent simply appropriated the clear intent of Virginia's Article 11 militia powers amendment and reassigned it to the entirely separate and distinct Second Amendment predecessor found in Virginia's list of Bill of Rights protections. Mason's speech makes no such connection and, in fact, contradicts any such link.
     Mason's quote in the Heller dissent is its sole piece of period evidence indicating the Founders and dissent share the same view of Second Amendment intent. The dissenting justices' misinterpretation of their Mason speech snippet conclusively demonstrates that the dissent view of Second Amendment intent is founded on an erroneous conflation of intent with an entirely different amendment. Mason's complete comments on June 14, 1788, demonstrate the Heller dissent historical arguments to be based on a foundation of factual error.

[The next post will examine and document an entirely separate series of historical sources from George Mason's activities in the Virginia Ratifying Convention that further document Justice Stevens' Heller dissent to be a train wreck of American history.]

The Purpose of the Second Amendment - What was the Original Language, Who Wrote It, and Why?

     The "well regulated militia" language of the Second Amendment, which has confused so many for so long, is relatively easy to trace back to its earliest American author and bill of rights usage. Here is why. Congress based the first clause of the Second Amendment on an exact quote taken from the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.748] Virginia's Second Amendment related language was America's first in a state constitutional level document. So what exactly was the language Congress relied upon?

"that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;" [OSA, p.459]

     Why was this language relied on by Congress as an amendment to the Constitution? The ratifying conventions of Virginia and North Carolina adopted proposed bills of rights quoting Virginia's earlier bill of rights language. [OSA, pp.459, 505] New York's convention included virtually identical language, which itself had been based on Virginia's language. New York described a well regulated militia as "including the body of the people capable of bearing arms". [OSA, p.481]  It is clear that these bill of rights "well regulated militia" references related to the body of the people, not to a government formed select militia like the modern National Guard as has so often been claimed by proponents of gun control.

     So who wrote this original language back in 1776? George Mason, [The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, p.62]  and he used virtually the same language prior to the beginning of the Revolutionary War to describe a voluntary defensive association in Fairfax County, Virginia. It was formed so the people could protect their rights and the existing constitution from violation by government officials and the military forces raised by them. The language that the Second Amendment was directly based upon was intended to protect against unconstitutional and rights violating actions of government carried out by force.

     There is extensive historical evidence that "well regulated militia" did not refer to a government regulated or authorized militia, but rather to locally organized defensive forces. Mason's early 1775 well regulated militia references applied to self-embodying, self-organizing, self-officering, self-training, and self-arming associations of all the free men for local defense against a current danger - British government officials and forces. [FVRBA, pp.45-50] No such local defensive associations could have existed unless the men possessed and knew how to use their own arms. The historical sources indicate that government officials and forces were taking every measure possible to limit the ability of Americans for self-defense by decreasing the availability of arms and ammunition. [FVRBA, pp.36-43]

     This historical information makes the Second Amendment's language and meaning much more clear. Claims of ambiguity about the Second Amendment evaporate once the stated meaning of its terms and the historical background of their use are known. We find that what advocates of gun control have always said about the Second Amendment's intent, that it was not intended to protect individual rights, is diametrically opposed to reality and extensive period historical evidence. Individuals voluntarily associated for defense against unconstitutional and rights violating actions of force by the government in 1774 and 1775 prior to the formation of any new American governments or any hostilities of the Revolution. This activity was based upon fundamental, unalienable rights that Americans subsequently protected against government violation in their state and federal bills of rights.

     For further and much more detailed information about the Second Amendment's development and purpose, read The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clauses, my short, documented online history.

Second Amendment Intent / Right to Keep and Bear Arms Explained

Updated January 6, 2013

Visitors looking for facts about Second Amendment history and intent can read the results of my research online in several articles and posts, which are described and linked below. The facts of American history can end the never-ending dispute over Second Amendment intent, but only if they are understood and deployed to undermine the error based belief system of gun control supporters.

First, the shortest and most detailed account of Second Amendment history and intent is found in my article, The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clauses. As noted in the prior post, this was printed in The Journal on Firearms & Public Policy's 2011 issue. It traces the well regulated militia and right of the people to keep and bear arms language of the Second Amendment back in history to their earliest American bill of rights usage and authors. Then in goes back earlier in American history to the actual events from which such usage developed. The article amounts to an online crash course in Second Amendment history and intent.

Other online articles include four analyzing briefs supporting Washington DC in the Heller case for extensive historical errors. These demonstrate that those supporting gun control are entirely off base in understanding American history and rights. Such historical arguments were presented in briefs of fifteen professional historians (written by Stanford's Jack Rakove), the city of Chicago, a large group of civic organizations, and three professional linguists. The first analysis, of the historians' errors, Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional, was published by History News Network on February 17, 2008.

Three other articles were published at the Origin of the Second Amendment website. The Windy City's Heller brief attempted to sway the Supreme Court by repeated use of the term "federalism". My article, Chicago Re-Writes U.S. Bill of Rights History, examines and documents historical errors in Chicago's brief.

An extensive founding era document section was presented as an appendix in the Heller brief filed by numerous civic organizations. The Second Amendment as Militia Law, or, Bill of Rights? What Bill of Rights?, is the article examining the off-track historical interpretation presented within it.

Historically oriented analysis of the linguists' Heller brief is found in Professional Linguists Provide Half a Loaf with No Bill of Rights Ingredients.

A common theme runs through the historical Heller briefs of gun control supporters - lack of American Bill of Rights history, context, and intent. What this means in general terms is that they are all wrong, a fact documented at this blog in extensive analyses of the Heller professional historian amici entitled, Root Causes of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute, which consists of 24 posts. The gun control advocate view of the Second Amendment is a house of cards - nay, a rather extensive castle of cards. Removing the foundation, which consists of factual errors, causes the whole to crumble. I strongly recommend those wanting to fully grasp the historical import of these posts read them in order starting from part 1 (linked above), because the errors of fact build upon each other. The posts are documented and very detailed (read boring), but the payoff in essential historical knowledge is priceless.

The same suggestion is offered for two other series of six blog posts, each dealing with professional historians' mistakes about the Second Amendment intent. In the Supreme Court's McDonald case, which dealt with the Fourteenth Amendment issue of whether the Second Amendment was intended to apply to state and local governments, some of the same professional historians returned to re-argue Heller related historical issues. This was probably an attempt to get one justice to change a vote. Once again, there were significant historical errors and attempts to divert away from American Bill of Rights history in the two briefs analyzed. The first series, Historians Try to Sell Brooklyn London Bridge to U.S. Supreme Court, attempts to divert to English history for understanding an American Bill of Rights provision. The second series, Historians Try to Sell Brooklyn London Benjamin Franklin Bridge to the U.S. Supreme Court, deals with Pennsylvania history. It was in Pennsylvania that "the people have a right to bear arms" language originated in American bills of rights.

Don't forget to share this post or the above links with those interested in protecting their rights.