Stephen P. Halbrook is a giant in the field of Second Amendment studies, and I doubt that there is anyone from whom I’ve learned more about the history of the right to keep and bear arms. I was therefore surprised to find numerous fallacious arguments and technical errors in his response to my analysis of the Court’s latest Second Amendment decision: Text-and-History or Means-End Scrutiny? A Response to Professor Nelson Lund’s Critique of Bruen. Halbrook is also a very energetic and tenacious advocate for gun rights, and some of the invalid arguments he deploys against me might have a worthy place in a brief filed with a court. But they are not analytically effective responses to a scholarly article. For more detail, see my new article Stephen P. Halbrook’s Confused Defense of Bruen’s Novel Interpretive Rule.
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at email@example.com.