Law and History Review Vol 22 No 1 Spring 2004
would also view the militarization of American society necessary to recreate the militia
as a negative development. Perhaps the new paradigm for the Second Amendment
suggested by Konig and others can help us move beyond the current impasse. At the very
least a more complex history of the right to keep and bear arms can help us understand
how we have arrived at our current situation.
Associate Professor of History, The Ohio State University, Director Second Amendment
Research Center John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy. I would like
to thank Don Higginbotham, Christopher Tomlins, Charlie Finlay, and Nathan DeDino
for helpful suggestions.
For introductions to this body of scholarship, see Robert J. Cottrol, ed. Gun control
and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment (Westport,
CT, 1994); Glenn Harlan Reynolds, “A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment”
Tennessee Law Review 62 (1995): 461-512; Saul Cornell, ed., Whose Right to Bear
Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect (Boston, 2000); and Carl T. Bogus, “The
history and Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship: a Primer” Chicago Kent Law
Review 76 (2000): 3-25.
Second Amendment scholarship is a classic example of Thomas Kuhn s theory of
paradigm change, see Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(Chicago,
1962) and David Hollinger, “T.S. Kuhn’s Theory of Science and its Implications for
History” 78 (1973), 370-393. For a concise overview of the origins of the current