Constitutional Law Text book and 2nd Amendment

November 24, 2009

Ok for those of you that dont know. I am currently in school for Law. I have completed my Associates degree in Paralegal studies and am now working on my Bachelors in Law studies, then fully intend on going to actual Law school.

As one of my electives this term, I chose to take Constitutional Law. I got home today, and my text book had been delivered. I was excited, time to crack it open and start get more fuel for debates and see what else I could learn on the Second Amendment.

As I am looking there is a chapter on free speech then it skips the right to keep and bear arms, and moves straight to the fourth amendment and so on. WTH. I was mad so I dropped back to the index to find the Second Amendment. It noted that the Second Amendment was on page 21 and 22. Even more pissed now, considering there is an entire chapter dedicated to the others, I turn to page 21 and this is what I find.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCHRIST%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><style>  </style> “The Second, Third, and Seventh Amendment have limited importance. The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a <st1>free state,</st1> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment was largely ignored until the recent gun control controversy when opponents of gun control legislation began using it to argue that prohibiting ownership of guns violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Most courts have rejected this argument, holding that the first clause limits the second. The Second Amendment properly read, protects right to bear arms only when they are kept to fulfill militia obligations, not when they are used for hunting, recreation, self-protection, or other purposes. This issue is now before the Supreme Court. The ruling however will not be out until after this edition goes to press. “
Constitutional Law, / Jacqueline R. Kanovitz, Michael I. Kanovitz. – 11<sup>th</sup> ed.

I feel that if a class is supposed to be about Constitutional Law it should incorporate everything in a non partial manner. I now feel that this book is biased and don't want to take the class anymore. I am still kinda fuming as I am sure you can tell, so I will think on it for a few more days before I call my Academic adviser and tell him to sign me up for another class.

Depending on my decision I may raise hell with the school as well. But I would like to know everyone's take on this.

USMCJG · November 24, 2009

That is ridiculous and was clearly written with a definite bias against the RKBA. It's hard to believe that a Constitutional law book could consider 3 of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights to have "limited importance". If this is the way lawyers and judges are educated, you can see why they make some of the insane decisions that they do.

Oh Shoot · November 24, 2009

...
Depending on my decision I may raise hell with the school as well. But I would like to know everyone's take on this.

Do you get American Rifleman?

There's a pretty concise history of Constitutional law findings in regard to 2A in the current issue. Forget NRA or liberal bent, it shows THE rulings thus far and the legal basis for them.

Compare that with your textbook, and see how much they differ.

Can tell you though that the statement:

The Second Amendment properly read, protects right to bear arms only when they are kept to fulfill militia obligations, not when they are used for hunting, recreation, self-protection, or other purposes..

Seems to be textbook author's opinion, and though it has been used as argument by various counsel, has NOT been the written opinion of any of the federal court decisions thus far, as far as I know having read about them.

- OS

November 24, 2009

I suggest you suck it up and take the class, however painful that may be. When you take Con Law in law school, and when you study for the bar exam, you're not going to see much of the second amendment there either and you will not have the option of dropping those courses. Keep in mind also that Heller was the first US Supreme Court case to directly address the second amendment since 1939. There just hasn't been a whole lot of case law on it, especially from the Supreme Court, and in law school that's what you study.

I imagine some of it also has to do with a certain bias on the part of academicians and administrators toward guns and the second amendment in general. They'd rather focus on areas like free speech and due process. The second amendment may be a big deal to us, but to most of the population it's still kind of a fringe area, and probably always will be.

JReedEsq · November 24, 2009

Stegall is right. You will not get to pick and choose your professors and many of them make little if any attempt to hide their particular political biases. Learning how to persuasively and respectfully disagree is a fundamental skill that you may not learn from people that you agree with.

I do agree with you that the author's take on the 2nd Amendment sounds like to me...

November 24, 2009

I see what you are saying Stegall, I know I wont be able to pick and choose my classes in law school, but at least they could give it some coverage and not completely discredit it before it even starts.

xreedx - I have no idea who my professor is going to be, my main complaint is the obvious bias on the 2nd in the text book itself.

My thing is that if Constitutional Law is going to be a class shouldn't it cover the entire constitution? Our founding fathers thought it was important to include the Second, Third and Seventh Amendment I think that they should be included.

Like I said I am still kind of upset but I understand what you guys are saying. And Stegall thanks for jumping in with that rational, that makes sense.

LagerHead · November 24, 2009

Geek, most textbooks these days are written with a liberal bias. But you are obviously intelligent enough to see right through it. Like Stegall said, take the class. It's important to your overall goal, which is waaaaaay more important than the liberal spin on this book, or the many others you are sure to encounter.

Who knows, maybe you'll be the next lawyer to win big in the Supreme Court and give us all back our rights.

Oh Shoot · November 24, 2009

...There just hasn't been a whole lot of case law on it, especially from the Supreme Court, and in law school that's what you study. ...

The article in American Rifleman has the litany of actions regarding US Constitution vs states rights. And how most every article and amendment that has been tested has been "incorporated" in that the states cannot restrict them via state law.

Of course, 2A stands pretty much alone in being totally twisted and ignored, even by the feds of course, until Heller.

- OS

TMMT · November 24, 2009

As P. Stegall said, if you are going to law school you are in for an eye opening experience.

November 24, 2009

Good luck on your acedemic endevors. We are all pulling for you.

Muddle through and do your best. Hopefully in the course of events you will be able to get some proper light on the subject for your professor and classmates.

November 24, 2009

"I am still kinda fuming as I am sure you can tell, so I will think on it for a few more days before I call my Academic adviser and tell him to sign me up for another class."

Do you mean another law class or another major altogether?

November 24, 2009

I understand your sentiment, but if you get a decent professor perhaps this is something you could bring up in an academic manner during the course of the class. As in a "Why has this amendment been disregarded and what makes one amendment more or less important than another".

I hated English class, but I always got back at teachers by putting a paper so far out there but academically sound that they couldn't really dismiss it. Outside the box thinking can be very useful.

TMMT · November 24, 2009

I think everyone needs to realize that Law School is designed to train and educate Lawyers by providing them the basic foundation and general basis to go forward and begin to practice law.

As with any quality basic training/education it is but a mere foundation to which you are expected to go forth on your own and continue to educate yourself and partake of continuing legal education courses if you intend to specialize, find a seasoned mentor who you can learn from.

A good example is Medical School, where one learns the very basics of medicine, they don't teach each and every person who graduates Medical School the finer points and skills of heart surgery. That requires more specialized schooling and training beyond the MD.

Does every doctor know the basics of the circulatory system and the most common diagnosed problems of the heart?

Yes...

Do they know when to refer you to a Heart Specialist?

Yes...

The same basic education principal is applicable here.

Another example which is closer to the legal side of the argument.

When I attended the Police Academy many, many years ago I was given the basic foundation of knowledge that one needed to police.

But in the area of law that I investigate and enforce today, I received zero schooling and training in during my basic academy days.

It don't mean that I'm not prepared to investigate crimes committed against that area of legal code, it meant that I had to take it upon myself to educate myself about the given laws and attend specialized courses that cover the specific area.

Don't read too much into the fact that very little is covered on the 2nd Amendment, the fact is you are not likely to encounter 2nd Amendment cases that often unless you specialize in that type of law as a trail lawyer.

Criminal defense or prosecution is about statutory per se, what the law says and the constructive, arguable facts surrounding the arrest and charges at hand. Points you will learn about once you begin law school.

The more you learn about the law and how to practice it the more you will understand why its taught the way it is. To you it will all be about rules of evidence, procedure and summaries of legal rules.

Edited November 24, 2009 by TMMT

November 24, 2009

I hated English class, but I always got back at teachers by putting a paper so far out there but academically sound that they couldn't really dismiss it. Outside the box thinking can be very useful.

Yeah I wrote a paper that was out there for my college entrance exam, had it graded my by uncle first, who is a college professor, he said it was good to go. I submitted it, and failed. I thew a hissy, demanded someone that would not hold personal bias on the topic grade it... then I got an A.

I guess it should have been a warning then but...

November 24, 2009

My colleague P Stegall & the others are correct, if you are gooing to go to law school, you will have to put up with some of this. your decision then is whether to argue with the books/professors--some enjoy this, some hate it--or whether to keep your mouth shut, get your sheepskin, & get out.

hey P Stegall, I practice across the street from you, I'll shoot you a pm & buy you lunch sometime.

November 24, 2009

I suggest you suck it up and take the class, however painful that may be.

+1

Suck it up until you "get the piece of paper / creds." At that point, you will have the opportunity to possibly make a difference.

When I started my LE career, I didn't always agree with things, but I was new and didn't have the "juice" to change things. I could have quit then.

Now, I have a little "juice" (Sergeant) and I have the opportunity to make little changes for, what I consider, the better.

Key to this is knowing what battles to fight and which ones to let go for another day.

November 24, 2009

Oh no not saying I would quit by any means. Just choose a difference class. I am continuing school even if it kills me. My main purpose for taking the class was for 2AM. But... as we all see its not covered. I will most likely take the class, I am still going to make sure that my view point is shown that the book is bias.

poak · November 24, 2009

I'd 2nd Stegall and Todd's opinions to "suck it up and take the class".

Unfortunately, you just CAN'T win an argument w/ a professor, even if they are blatantly wrong.

Besides, everybody hates the guy who keeps them in class longer.

DaveTN · November 24, 2009

But I would like to know everyone's take on this.

The paragraph you quoted pretty much sums it up, I donâ€™t understand what you think is missing. Other than the heated arguments and personal opinions; case law and history is all that would be left.

If you believe you have some rights under the 2<SUP>nd</SUP>, you should take the course.

mcurrier · November 25, 2009

+1
Suck it up until you "get the piece of paper / creds." At that point, you will have the opportunity to possibly make a difference.

Key to this is knowing what battles to fight and which ones to let go for another day.

Agreed. Take the classes and graduate as a sleeper agent for our side. They are pumping out liberal lawyers at a ratio of 99:1 to conservative lawyers.

tntnixon · November 25, 2009

The truth is we all have biases. I know that I do. If I wrote such a text it would be significantly different, but that is due to my own biases. Most of us have deep seeded belief systems about right and wrong, which translates to our feels about our own rightness on most issues. For instance, I get most of my news from Newsmax.com, Drudgereport.com and Fox News because they mostly share my views. If I were a liberal, I would probably lookk to CNN and MSNBC.

College professors and academians are no different fom the rest of us, in that regard. The problem is that academia tends to attract liberals because it shelters them from the "real world" and doesn't force them to be confronted by realities that might make them change their views. It's a lot easier to be be liberal when you never have to actually see the results of liberal policy in real peoples lives but only have to study it in theory.

Word of advice, just agree with your professors and come out with an A in the course. It looks a lot better on a transcript than a B or a C or, god forbid, a worse grade. You may have the "right of way" with a 18 wheeler coming straight at you, but you still need to swerve to keep from getting killed.

November 25, 2009

I see what you are saying. But I cant just agree with a professor if I dont agree with them. If they want to grade me based on a disagreement then I will dispute it.

DaveTN · November 25, 2009

I see what you are saying. But I cant just agree with a professor if I dont agree with them. If they want to grade me based on a disagreement then I will dispute it.

Then donâ€™t go into law.

You will be required to defend or enforce laws that you do not agree with. Right now itâ€™s about GPA, if someone wants your views they will ask. Making 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment arguments have to be based on law and fact; not your feelings about guns.

November 25, 2009

Then donâ€™t go into law.
You will be required to defend or enforce laws that you do not agree with. Right now itâ€™s about GPA, if someone wants your views they will ask. Making 2<sup>nd</sup> amendment arguments have to be based on law and fact; not your feelings about guns.

I think you are completely missing what I am saying. My beef is not with the professor, I dont even know who my Professor is yet, its with the text book. But tntnixon said to just agree with the professor to make a grade. That seems counter productive to me, part of law is arguing your point anyway. If the professor, grades a paper poorly because he disagrees with the topic then there are methods to go about disputing your grade and IMHO that Professor probably shouldn't be teaching. I am not going to just agree with a Professor, just to agree with them. If I disagree with something then I can make my case and argue my points, he/she can do the same. Doesn't mean we will agree in the end or that I will win, but I think that the concept of "just agree so you can make a grade" or "just agree to get voted in" is why this country is headed the way that it is right now. If your point can be backed up and does have a point, then I say argue.

mcurrier · November 25, 2009

I think you are completely missing what I am saying. My beef is not with the professor, I dont even know who my Professor is yet, its with the text book. But tntnixon said to just agree with the professor to make a grade. That seems counter productive to me, part of law is arguing your point anyway. If the professor, grades a paper poorly because he disagrees with the topic then there are methods to go about disputing your grade and IMHO that Professor probably shouldn't be teaching. I am not going to just agree with a Professor, just to agree with them. If I disagree with something then I can make my case and argue my points, he/she can do the same. Doesn't mean we will agree in the end or that I will win, but I think that the concept of "just agree so you can make a grade" or "just agree to get voted in" is why this country is headed the way that it is right now. If your point can be backed up and does have a point, then I say argue.

Very admirable sticking to your convictions, however I don't think that anyone here misunderstands or disagrees with you. They are just giving you advice to keep you in the game. You are dealing with the liberal mindset. Facts do not sway them. And you can already tell a lot about the 'professor' just from the textbook that they selected. His higher ups are not going to be inclined to take your side in a grading dispute, it's all subjective (and it's all liberal). They most likely have the same opinions and agenda that the professor will have. Never argue with an idiot (liberal), they will beat you to death with experience.

Liberals have infiltrated and over saturated the institutions of "higher" learning for almost a century now. Textbooks, especially History, have been whitewashed of the truth and bent towards the liberal agenda for a very long time. K through 12 and college.

If you want to go to a law school that will not have a biased liberal agenda, might I recommend Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA or Regent University in Virginia Beach. Other than those two, you are going to be butting heads with professors regarding opinion.

Keep in mind that you are not going to law school to learn the law, they don't teach that there. They teach procedure and thought process, angles of attack and defense, not specific black and white rules of law (which are ever changing). Two different law professors can teach constitutional law like they were from two different planets. A LOT of what you will get in law school is the professor's opinion, formed from their life experiences and outlook. Many students can not stay sanitized until after having graduated law school where they can then start to form their own opinions and draw their own conclusions, but are molded during their three years of constant indoctrination. It's like being a double agent if you want to escape law school with your own mind.

Constitutional Law Text book and 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

Guest Gun Geek

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Revelator

Guest Gun Geek

Guest mikedwood

Guest jackdm3

Guest CrazyLincoln

Guest Gun Geek

Guest BJEC1248

Guest Todd@CIS

Guest Gun Geek

Guest Gun Geek

Guest Gun Geek

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recent Topics

TGO HELPFUL LINKS

TRADING POST NOTICE

THE FINE PRINT

Important Information