Document Type


Publication Date



This invited Comment examines the quantitative analysis of postiDistrict of Columbia v Heller icommon law performed by Professors Eric Ruben and Joseph Blocher in iFrom Theory to Doctrine An Empirical Analysis of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Afteri Heller Their groundbreaking and provocative work seeks to advance Second Amendment scholarship in two important ways First it aims to describe Second Amendment doctrine by quantifying aspects of that constitutional provision's common law Second it challenges the view that lower courts have deliberately and systematically undercut both the right to bear and the right to keep arms as articulated by the US Supreme Court in iHelleri and officially declared fundamental and applicable to the states in iMcDonald v City of ChicagoibrbrProfessors Ruben and Blocher present a ÔÇ£distant readingÔÇØ of postHeller Second Amendment doctrine An examination of iHelleri's impact ' and the particular proposition that courts are defying that landmark decision ' based on scientific analysis of aggregate hard data on judicial rulings rather than a parsing of the language of individual opinions Scholars and practitioners alike would do well to pay close attention to the authors' descriptive findings They perform a valuable service by both confirming conventional wisdom and upending common misapprehensionsbrbrBut the authors' secondary albeit generally tentative implication that courts are not underenforcing iHelleri requires further analysis This conclusion is driven primarily by the authors' decision not to measure the final outcomes of Second Amendment challenges It is heightened by the limitations of empirical studies the knowledge that judges with even a modicum of selfcontrol are capable of masking their hostility to arms rights and my desire for information to complement that which is reported in the study Professor Ruben and Professor Blocher's study also presents evidence of judicial defiance that merits further investigation

First Page