Featuring Amir A. Nasr, Author, My Isl@m: How Fundamentalism Stole My Mind—and Doubt Freed My Soul (St. Martin’s Press, 2013); with comments by Suad Ad., Researcher, Arab Center for Scientific Research and Humane Studies, Morocco; moderated by Ian Vasquez, Director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute.
As we celebrate this achievement and strive for further progress, we should not lose sight of the central role that voluntary exchange, freedom of choice, competition and protection of property play in ending privation.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
The Future of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group
Featuring Alan Gura, Partner, Gura & Possessky, P.L.L.C.; Dennis Henigan, Vice President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Nelson Lund, Professor, George Mason University Law School; and Alan B. Morrison, Professor, The George Washington University Law School; moderated by Roger Pilon, Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
In 2008, for the first time in our history, the Supreme Court invoked the Second Amendment to strike down a gun-control law, holding that the federal government may not prohibit law-abiding citizens from keeping a handgun in the home for self defense. In 2010, the Court held that state and local governments are also prohibited from banning handguns in the home. Major victories for individual liberty, those decisions were also very narrow. Can we expect future decisions to recognize a wide range of rights to keep and bear arms? Or will the Court’s recent decisions turn out to be mostly symbolic, with little effect on legislative discretion to regulate access to firearms? Please join us for a discussion of opposing views about what the courts are likely to do and what they should do.