Stephen p halbrook biography templates

Introduction: Stephen P. Halbrook is a Research Fellow with the Independent Institute who has argued and won three constitutional law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has taught legal and political philosophy at George Mason University, Howard University and Tuskegee Institute. Dr. Halbrook is the author of eight books including, most recently, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State” (2014), The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms; Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right To Bear Arms, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees and Target Switzerland (also in German, French, Italian, and Polish editions). Dr. Halbrook holds a Ph.D. in social philosophy from Florida State University and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. His popular articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, San Antonio Express-News, Environmental Forum, USA Today and the Washington Times. He has appeared on numerous national TV/radio programs such as “The Phil Donahue Show” and programs on Fox Business Network, Court TV, Voice of America, CNN and C-SPAN.

Daily Bell: Thank you for speaking with us. Please tell us about your most recent book, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State.” It is “based on newly-discovered, secret documents from German archives, diaries and newspapers of the time.” Where did these documents come from and how did you gain access to them?

Stephen Halbrook: I spent several years working with a German archive specialist searching records in numerous archives in Germany, most of which had been secret or had never been published. I also went through period newspapers, diaries and other long-forgotten documents. These records produced a wealth of i

by Stephen P. Halbrook

Stephen P. Halbrook is a practicing attorney in Fairfax, Virginia who received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Florida State University in 1972, and his J.D. From Georgetown University Law Center in 1978.

He is the author of That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (University of New Mexico Press 1984) and a Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees (Greenwood Press 1989). He has authored numerous law review articles on the Second Amendment and a chapter in The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1982).

He was lead counsel in National Rifle Association v. Brady, 914 F.2d 475 (4th Cir. 1990); Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v Van de Kamp, 746 F.Supp. 1415 (E.D. Cal. 1990), notice of appeal filed March 11, 1991 (9th Cir.); and Thompson/Center Arms Co. v. United States, 924 F.2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. granted U.S. (Oct. 7, 1991).

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Fourteenth Amendment provides: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The following analyzes the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court on the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition to case law, this paper sets forth the intent of the framers of those respective amendments. It concerns two fundamental issues: First, to what extent does the Second Amendment, which provides protection from federal infringement, guarantee the individual right to

Introduction

Justice Samuel Alito recently responded to a question about originalism by distinguishing between originalist judging and originalist scholarship. Originalist Justices, he said, must engage with the “immediate practical consequences” of their decisions. First, the sound principle of stare decisis dictates adherence to many non-originalist precedents. Second, the Justices must frequently compromise with their colleagues, as they should, to produce a majority opinion of the Court. I would add that practicing lawyers are even more constrained than the Justices. Litigators would often betray the duty of zealous advocacy that they owe their clients if they relied on what they think is the whole originalist truth and nothing but the originalist truth.

These constraints do not apply to scholars. Justice Alito emphatically asserted that stare decisis “has no place in any form of scholarship” and that scholars are not obliged to compromise their view of the truth with anyone. I agree with both points, and with his implicit suggestion that academics may be obliged not to compromise their views.

Stephen P. Halbrook is a giant in the field of Second Amendment studies, and I doubt there is anyone from whom I’ve learned more about the history of the right to keep and bear arms. I was, therefore, surprised to find numerous fallacious arguments and technical errors in his response to my analysis of the Court’s latest Second Amendment decision.Stephen P. Halbrook, Text-and-History or Means-End Scrutiny in Second Amendment Cases? A Response to Professor Nelson Lund’s Critique of Bruen, 24 Federalist Soc’y Rev. 54, 55–56 (2023) (responding to Nelson Lund, Bruen’s Preliminary Preservation of the Second Amendment, 23 Federalist Soc’y Rev. 279 (2022)). Halbrook is also a very energetic and tenacious litigator in behalf of gun rights, and some of his defective arguments might have an appropriate place in a brief filed with a court. But they are not analyti

Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute (independent.org) and holds a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Florida State University. One of the nation’s leading legal scholars and historians on the Second Amendment, he has devoted fifty years to studying the right to keep and bear arms. He argued and won Printz v. United States and other cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, and he represented a majority of members of Congress as amici curiae in the seminal Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Dr. Halbrook’s works have been relied on by Justices Antonin Scalia in the Heller and Samuel Alito in the McDonald decisions, and by courts in numerous other cases on the right to bear arms. Among his books are The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?; The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms; Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms; That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right; Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”; Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance; The Swiss and the Nazis; and Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II.