"... In all, 13 prior law journal articles (including the 1874 article (counted as one) and an article published by Ansell in 1917 which was also not listed in the Index to Legal Periodicals under the subject headings of "weapons" or "right to bear arms") were published before 1960, and all of them adopt the militia view. ..."
I'd like to see Prof. Spitzer's definition of "the militia view," and a description of how and where it conflicts with the Standard Model expounded by Rawle, Story, Cooley, and the majority of modern scholars, because I read the 1874 article and the 1917 article and don't see where either of them conflicts with the Standard Model. For example the 1747 article (http://www.guncite.com/journals/centlj.html) says that a law regulating the wearing of certain weapons does not violate the Second Amendment because a) the type of weapons that the law prohibited people from carrying were not the type of weapons soldiers ordinarily use -- no disagreement with the Standard Model here, and b) the right can be regulated without taking it away -- no disagreement with the Standard Model here, either >From the article: "... With certain restricted exceptions, it effectually prohibits the bearing of all small arms, whether openly or concealed, on horseback or on foot. It is doubtful whether so sweeping a statute can be sustained in the light of any of the adjudications already quoted. But the late Supreme Court of Texas nevertheless did, in English v. The State, supra, declare that it is neither in conflict with the second amendment of the federal constitution, nor with the provision of the constitution of that state quoted at the beginning of this article. The court (Walker, J.) say: "The word 'arms,' in the connection we find it in the constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militia-man or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster-pistol and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siege gun and mortar, with side-arms. The terms dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword-canes, brass-knuckles and bowie-knives belong to no military vocabulary. Were a soldier on duty found with one of these things about his person he would be punished for an offence against discipline. The act referred to makes all necessary exceptions, and points out the place, the time and manner in which certain deadly weapons may be carried as a means of self-defence; and these exceptional cases, in our judgment, fully cover all the wants of society. There is no abridgment of the personal rights, such as may be regarded as inherent and inalienable to man, nor do we think his political rights are the least infringed by any part of this law." The court also understand the word "arms" in the Texas constitution as having the same import and meaning which it has in the second amendment of the federal constitution; and they hold that the legislature may regulate the right to bear arms without taking it away, and that this has been done by the act under consideration." So what is Prof. Spitzer's rationale for not counting the 1874 article as a Standard Model article?
