Summary: Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today: Gun Ownership: An Individual or Collective Right? - Eugene Volokh debates Erwin ChemerinskyRoe v. Wade - Time for a Second Look? Download Subscribe Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes Gun Ownership: An Individual or Collective Right? - Eugene Volokh debates Erwin Chemerinsky There were two major events in the world of constitutional jurisprudence in the last two weeks. The first was the decision by the Supreme Court to grant a review of a Court of Appeals decision to overturn a Washington D.C. law banning ownership of handguns. This marks the first time since 1939 that the court will consider whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual or a collective right. Eugene Volokh appeared on KPCC's Air Talk program to defend the individual right side against Erwin Chemerinsky on the collective side. But first I'm going to play a recording of Professor David Currie reading the 2nd Amendment. Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy for the link to the University of Chicago Law Faculty Blog. Play clip. Just to make sure you get it, here it is again. Play clip. Now, let's hear Erwin Chemerinsky concede that there may be an individual right to bear arms, but the government can regulate guns anyway, if the rules are reasonable. The host, Larry Mantle, asks some important questions, and then Eugene Volokh comes in to shred Chemerinsky's argument. Lots of constitutional law fun on the radio. Play clip. I love Chemerinsky's claim that the DC ban on all handguns is reasonable. I would guess that a ban on all religions could be considered reasonable in the eyes of an atheist. But religion is protected in the bill of rights, just like gun ownership. And we allow people the free exercise of religion. Why not the free ownership of guns? I suggest that this reasonableness argument is not going to go very far. But it is good to hear they have conceded the individual right. It's about time. Roe v. Wade - Time for a Second Look? The second big story on constitutional law was more ephemeral. I detect a growing consensus among conservatives that the court may eventually get another crack at the Roe v. Wade decision. I'm no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but three different programs I've listened to over the last two weeks have caused me to think there may be a valid argument for overturning this decision. The first was an appearance at the Heritage Foundation presentation by Henry Mark Holzer, law professor and author of The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas 1991-2006: A Conservative's Perspective. The talk could more accurately described as a love-fest for Clarence Thomas. The first clip is about what the professor describes as Uber-Substantive Due Process, which is the tendency of the court to over reach in trying to make or undue what they consider silly laws, even if those law are enacted by the political branches of government. This clip starts a little slow, but believe me, you will not be disappointed by the end. Play clip. Over ruled, root and branch, indeed. Tell us what you really think professor. Later, Professor Holzer had a great answer to a loaded question about Roe at the end of talk. Play clip. That's got to hurt. People have little faith in the speed of legislatures fix problems, it seems, so they turn to the courts. In 1879 the legislature of Connecticut passed their contraceptive ban. It outlawed any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. The law was almost never enforced, but it was on the books. People tried for years to make it a test case to push the Supreme Court to get involved, when the Connecticut legislature apparently found no reason to repeal the law. I suppose they thought they had no choice to elect new leaders, or move to a state that permitted contraception. That it would take too long. So, in 1964, Planned Parenthood opened a clinic whose sole purpose was to issue contraceptives. The director, one Estelle Gr
