Citation

Kopel DB, Cramer CE. Widener Law J. 2010; 19: 343-378.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Widener University School of Law)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In response to our criticisms of errors and omissions in Nicholas Kozuskanich's articles about the history of the right to arms in early Pennsylvania, Kozuskanich offers an unpersuasive reply and counterattack. While he continues to insist that the Pennsylvania Constitution, which declared "That the people have a right" to arms meant that only militiamen had a right, he is still unable to explain why the Pennsylvania drafters, in three other Articles, used "That the people have a right" to mean that all the people (not just a special group) have a right. Nor does he explain why his original articles failed to even mention the existence of the other Articles with identical language. Kozuskanich doubles down in his efforts to prove that Second Amendment scholar Stephen Halbrook is "inept," but Kozuskanich's purported proofs are mistaken. For example, Kozuskanich claims that Halbrook offered nothing more than a bare assertion in support of Halbrook's interpretation of the right to arms Article in the Pennsylvania Constitution. To the contrary, Halbrook provided nine pages of analysis, supported by 58 footnotes. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1540071

Language: en