Featuring Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute; and Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; moderated by John Maniscalco, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
Would she criticize those cases for failing to uphold the overarching purpose of the Constitution – which appears right in the preamble – to “insure domestic Tranquillity” and “provide for the common defense”?
Featuring Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, Lead Counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Robert Levy, Chairman, Cato Institute, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; and Emily Miller, Senior Editor, Washington Times, Author, Emily Gets Her Gun (forthcoming, Regnery); moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. By a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that the strict gun-control laws in the nation’s capital—which amounted to a complete ban on any usable weapon for self-protection, even in the home—were unconstitutional. The Court finally confronted a long-simmering controversy over the scope of the Second Amendment and declared that, yes, that amendment does secure an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Now, five years later, with gun controls being debated both in the Congress and state legislatures, it is a good time to assess the impact of the Heller precedent. Please join us for a wide-ranging discussion of the Second Amendment, self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms.