I keep some references at hand that you may find useful:
As a general pointer, go to the following websites and use the search function or prowl around and you should come up with some sources;
1. Professor Glenn Reynolds, UTenn
http://instapundit.com
2. Clayton Cramer
http://www.claytoncramer.com/
3. Dave Kopel
Lots of stuff here
http://www.davekopel.com/
4. Dave Hardy, Attorney
Has law reveiw articles, among other info
http://www.armsandthelaw.com/
More generally:
1. A list, with links, to various scholars on the 2A
http://www.hoboes.com/Politics/Firearms/scholarship/
2. Academics for the Second Amendment:
http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/
Not sure how much these guys actually have online yet, they just started a blog.
Some specific articles:
1.
A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment
Abstract:
This Article surveys case law, history, and scholarship on the Second Amendment. Examining both "individual right" and "collective right" theorists, it synthesizes a so-called "Standard Model" of Second Amendment interpretation, and briefly addresses questions of what weapons might be protected under a more expansive treatment of the Second Amendment than exists today.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=960788
2.
Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment by Robert Churchill, Historian
http://www.historycooperative.org/journ ... chill.html
3.
The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller , BRIAN L. FRYE
NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 2, 2007
This article provides a comprehensive history and interpretation of United States vs. Miller, the only Supreme Court case construing the Second Amendment. It presents evidence Miller was a test case designed by the government to test the constitutionality of federal gun control. It shows the holding in Miller is narrower than generally assumed. It argues Miller adopts neither the individual nor the collective right theory of the Second Amendment. It suggests the Supreme Court's pragmatic, deferential approach in Miller remains appropriate.
4.
Telling Miller's Tale
GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
University of Tennessee College of Law
BRANNON P. DENNING
Cumberland School of Law
65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113 (Spring 2002)
The case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), is often cited in gun-control arguments and arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment. In this Article, we take a close look at Miller, and the arguments made before the Supreme Court. When the decision is read closely and the arguments available (and not available) to the Court are taken into account, the decision is best understood as leaving open the opportunity for courts to adopt the Standard Model reading of the Second Amendment. What Miller plainly does not do is deny that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment—the holding ascribed to it by most federal
courts since 1939.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=960812
5.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Treats Second Amendment as Involving an Individual Right:
Professor Eugene Volokh
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007 ... 1196212101
6.
A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary
Adam Liptak, New York Times
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06 ... ref=slogin
7.
Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
8.
The Racist Roots of Gun Control
This somewhat indirectly addresses individual rights, in that it shows among the ways that various minorities had their individual rights suppressed was through gun control laws.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
9.
The Klan's Favorite Law
Gun control in the postwar South
David B. Kopel
Similarly to above, this shows that suppression of individual right to bear arms had a racist beginning
http://www.reason.com/news/printer/32884.html
10.
THE SUPREME COURT'S THIRTY-FIVE OTHER GUN CASES: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
David B. Kopel [FNa1]
Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 1999
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm
Also, you should look up the Dredd Scott decision. This was a pre-civil war Supreme Court decision that supported slavery. However, it treated the 2A as an individual right, with the (rather offensive) argument that if blacks were really equal citizens, then they would have the right to have guns, something the racists on the court were not prepared to allow.
11.
The Second Amendment and States' Rights: A Thought Experiment
GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
University of Tennessee College of Law
DONALD KATES
36 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1737-1768 (1995)
Proponents of the so-called "collective right" model of the Second Amendment often assert that the right to bear arms exists only on the part of state militias, and not as any sort of individual right. Without addressing the merits of that claim, this Article examines the consequences of taking such a view seriously as a matter of constitutional law, and suggests that those consequences might be quite drastic.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=960810
This should get you started. Now go forth and crush your opponent!
elb
