Publisher's Weekly Review
Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, mines 400 years of debate over gun control in America to analyze the Supreme Court's landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in this timely and persuasive history. Dismissing the extremist "gun nuts" and "gun grabbers" who have dominated the gun debate for decades, the author clearly shows that the right to bear arms and gun control have always coexisted in the U.S.-even on the frontier where guns and gun regulation were widespread. The brainchild of a pair of libertarian lawyers, the Heller case revolved around the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns and the contention of Heller's lawyers that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own guns. Clearly mirroring the impasse over the issue, it offered the courts a rare opportunity to point toward a historically valid compromise position. In 2008, after five years of dramatic litigation, the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s handgun ban and recognized the plaintiffs' individual rights theory while still noting that many forms of gun control are constitutional. In the tradition of 1976's Simple Justice and 1964's Gideon's Trumpet, Winkler skillfully weaves together history and contemporary jurisprudence to explore a contentious issue of constitutional interpretation. (Sept.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
Kirkus Review
In his first book, Daily Beast columnist Winkler (Constitutional Law/UCLA) takes on the contentious issue of gun control in the United States.There have always been plenty of guns in America, but also plenty of gun control. For the author, there remains a need for both, yet extremist positions have emerged on both sides. "Gun nuts" argue for the absolute right of individuals to arm themselves, "gun grabbers" for a complete ban on all privately owned guns. The Second Amendment to the Constitution has been of little help, as it is not clear if the Amendment meant simply to ensure the formation of state militias or indeed gave the individual the right to bear arms. In 2008, a Washington, D.C., law banning all handguns was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, thus putting to the test the meaning of the Second Amendment. The unifying thread of the book is Winkler's Grisham-like story of the personalities and issues surrounding this case. He also places the current debate within an often surprising historical context. Yes, the Founding Fathers expected white men to have guns for service in the militia, but they also surrounded such gun possession with rules and regulations. The Wild West was not so wild after all. Places like Tombstone and Dodge City had some of the strongest gun laws ever devised in America. Race has played a large part in gun control, as before and after the Civil War black Americans were often terrorized by armed whites, with little legal recourse to arming themselves for self-defense. In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed into law strict prohibitions on the carrying of arms after the Black Panthers marched into the California Capitol Building armed to the teeth. In the end, the Supreme Court struck down the D.C. law but also noted there remained the right of government to regulate gun ownership. Winkler writes that this decision may open the way for action to truly reduce gun violence, yet unfortunately offers few suggestions for what these actions might be.Detailed, balanced and engrossingsure to displease both sides of the gun-control debate.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Choice Review
Winkler (Univ. of California, Los Angeles) presents an examination of the current legal environment of gun control in the wake of the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision. According to Winkler, the modern debate over control has devolved into extremist arguments pitting liberals, who want to confiscate most guns in America, against conservatives who stand opposed to any reasonable gun control efforts. While this characterization rests on a good deal of exaggeration, Winkler offers his book as a moderate alternative perspective, viewing the Heller decision as an extension of a long-standing attempt in the US to balance gun rights and gun control. While many liberals condemned the Heller decision's extension of the Second Amendment to state efforts to regulate firearms, Winkler applauds the decision as an example of judicial statesmanship. In praising Scalia's opinion in the case, Winkler argues that Heller failed to vindicate either side's extreme position and has instead created the conditions in which rational political compromise can now be reached, balancing protection for gun rights with concern for public safety. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers, undergraduate students, and graduate students. E. C. Sands Berry College
Library Journal Review
Constitutional law scholar Winkler (law, Univ. of California, Los Angeles) presents an extensive overview of the history of state and federal attempts to regulate firearms. The author shows how political pressures and popular will can be exerted upon both liberal and conservative politicians to periodically tighten and loosen restrictions on the possession and sale of guns. A central theme of the book is the ripple effect on gun-control laws resulting from pendulum swings in social policy brought about by economic uncertainty and periodic bursts of political and social violence. The author shows how gun-control laws are frequently knee-jerk reactions to sudden shifts in public policy rather than carefully planned political and legal responses to social change and the evolution of constitutional thought. VERDICT Aimed at an academic audience and well documented, the book is replete with analysis of the legal, political, and social issues involved and is thus recommended for academic, law, and larger public libraries.-Philip Y. Blue, New York State Supreme Court Criminal Branch Law Lib., New York (c) Copyright 2011. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.