So someone is trying the Bellesiles method of 'history' again

These statements are claims about restrictions on civilian gun possession — about who was “permitted to own guns,” who was “prohibit[ed]” from owning guns, who was subject to “firearms restrictions” and “gun regulation,” whose “disarmament” was “allowed” by various “laws,” and so on — and not merely about who could be excluded from militia duty.

Yet unfortunately, none of the sources that the article cites actually shows that early American laws barred poor whites, women, and noncitizens from owning guns. Perhaps there are such early sources. But the article does not cite them, nor do the sources that the article cites on these matters sufficiently support the article’s assertions.... The article [does cite one contemporary source], which says that “the meaning of the right to bear arms, unlike virtually any other right described in either state constitutions or the federal Constitution, was colored by the inchoate notions of class and rank that shaped American politics in this period.” But, however the “meaning” of the right may have been “colored,” that passage points to no statutes that actually limited gun ownership by women, poor whites, or aliens....

The article does include a footnote that says, “I am not arguing that women were prevented from owning arms; rather, prevailing statutes and legal opinions gendered arms bearing in important ways.” So the careful reader might grasp that the article’s claims about women — but not the article’s claims about poor whites and noncitizens — are not what they first appear.

But I am afraid that some readers might understandably miss that footnote. And if they see it, they might understandably be confused, because it is difficult to reconcile that footnote with the article’s statements that:

“[S]ince only ‘First-Class citizens’ were allowed to ... bear arms ..., ... women ... were denied many fundamental rights presently associated with citizenship.”
“[G]un regulation [depended] on a conception of membership in the national community con¬tin¬gent upon ... gender.”
“[O]nly select citizen males could legitimately exercise the right to bear arms.”
“[A]rms bearing was considered congruent to voting.”
“[F]irearms ... could be denied to most ... women.”

...
When the article was available in draft on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), I e-mailed the author asking whether he had found some sources showing that women, poor whites, and noncitizens had indeed been disarmed by law. I asked again after the Law Review published the article. But while the author kindly and promptly replied to my e-mails, neither response pointed to any sources that actually showed that women, poor whites, or noncitizens were legally constrained from owning guns.

It thus seems to me that the article may leave the reader with a mistaken understanding of the matter. I thought this was worth communicating to readers....



About Holder's lyi- ah, testimony the other day:
There you have it: One of the most incompetent (at best) and murderous operations ever undertaken in the name of the Justice Department, and all the attorney general can do is say they’ve closed the barn door now that the horses have fled, taking the guns and ammo with them.

Oh, and promise to get to the bottom of things . . . someday.


Oh yeah, I'd have loved to have someone put it to Holder this way after his "Have you no shame?" bullshit:
Rep. Matthew Hoy (R-Hoystory): Shame? Shame!? Hundreds of Mexicans are dead. Border Agent Brian Terry is dead. The department that you have authority over allowed more than 2,000 guns to cross the border into the hands of violent drug cartels and you have the gall to chide elected representatives of the American people who seek to hold you to account for your lawlessness?

Shame?

Your deputy submitted a letter to Congress that you withdrew only after subsequent disclosures proved it to be full of lies. You can split legal hairs about there being no “intent” to deceive Congress when that letter was originally submitted, but as time goes by that claim begins to look flimsier and flimsier.

Shame?

We found out just days ago that that ATF officials sought to use the violence in Mexico and the fact that U.S.-bought guns were showing up at crime scenes in that country as a pretext to push for further restrictions on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. You, of course, were ignorant of this.

Shame?

It’s been the better part of six months, or maybe 9 or 12, depending on the quality of your memory and the meaningless difference between “weeks” and “months” in your concept of time, since you knew about this operation and not a single individual has lost their job, let alone has had charges filed against them for violations of federal laws.

Hundreds are dead as a direct result of actions undertaken by your subordinates and you wish to shame Congress?

Mr. Attorney General, if you had any integrity. If you had any honor, you would fire those most responsible for this travesty and then resign yourself.

The only person in this committee room who should be feeling shame is you and what you allowed—either by design or by neglect—to happen in Operation Fast and Furious.

Chairman: Member’s time has expired.



Rep. Hank Johnson(NSD-GA): "This is all made up by you!"
Johnson’s comments came during an interview with The Daily Caller outside the House Judiciary Committee hearing room. Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying before the committee about Fast and Furious — a Justice Department program where Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents facilitated the sale of about 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels.

“I think this is another manufactured controversy by the second amendment, NRA Republican tea party movement,” Johnson said.
You only wish, Johnson.
And then he moves on to the Gun Show Loophole bullcrap; because SOMETHING has to be done to distract from the actual wrongs done by Holder & Co.


Also from Holder: "I'm far too busy to read the stuff I know you're going to ask me about. And the dog ate my briefing file."


Sipsey Street notes the NYEffin'Times practicing its usual level of journalism:
But Mr. Savage, in his zeal to portray Darrell Issa as the latter-day Joe McCarthy, convicted by the stout-hearted Holder's rebuttal, manages to tell a lie. Not a half-truth, not a misinterpretation, not a misstatement, but a lie.

But Mr. Holder snapped near the very end, after Mr. Issa, who has been a leader of the Fast and Furious investigation, compared him to John Mitchell, the Nixon administration attorney general who went to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “The reference to John Mitchell — think about that,” he said. “At some point, as they said in the McCarthy hearings, have you no shame?” The comment was a paraphrase of a famous 1954 rebuke of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin Republican who rose to fame and power by accusing military and government officials of Communist sympathies, destroying careers and reputations. Mr. Issa did not respond.

The only problem with this is that Darrell Issa DID respond. And anybody who was paying attention in the room heard it and knew it. When Holder demanded of Issa, "Have you no shame?" Issa INSTANTLY shot back: "Have YOU no shame?" Now, Issa's words were -- for whatever reason -- barely picked up by the mike, but they certainly carried to everybody at the press table, where I was at. Savage's false account makes it seem like Darrell Issa was somehow silenced by the valiant Holder. That is a lie. It is, however, the standard of reportage we have come to expect from media lickspittles like Charlie Savage. Of course, the sad thing for Charlie is that there is now a new media to call out the lies of the dinosaur media. Poor Lyin' Charlie. Poor New York Times.


More to come, but I'm out of time