Ms. Malcolm nicely lays out the history of the tension between English rulers and subjects over the control of weapons. She made me realize that the current dispute in this country over access to firearms has a long pedigree. Her depiction of the circumstances under which England, in 1689, declared the right to bear arms "true, ancient, and indubitable," when in fact it was none of those is particularly interesting. (See p. 115.) She provides evidence for her view that "it is particularly ironic that some modern American lawyers have misread the English right to have arms as merely a 'collective' right inextricably tied to the need for a militia" (p. 119) when by 1689 the opposite was true. I'm not a historian or a gun enthusiast, but I find all of this quite fascinating.

When the book turns to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, its energy seems to flag. I am sympathetic to the argument that the Second Amendment confers a right on "the people" respectively, i.e. as individuals, "to keep and bear Arms." But Malcolm's argument is undermined, however slightly, when she urges that "[s]ome" i.e., more than one, nascent American state constitutions "included a specific right for an individual to have firearms for his own defence" (p. 150), but quotes and cites, as best I can discern, only the Pennsylvania bill of rights in support (pp. 148, 149). Is there more than one, or not? Another apparent example of waning energy toward the end is the treatment of an argument that "like the Convention Parliament in 1689, the senators [debating drafts of the Second Amendment] rejected a motion to add 'for the common defense' after 'to keep and bear arms.' " (P. 161.) To me, that point seems crucial, but Malcolm does not explore it further, beyond providing a footnoted reference to another source.

Finally, some minor quibbles. Noting the author's regular use of English spelling, I thought she was English until I realized, on reading the penultimate page, that she is an American (p. 176). Perhaps Malcolm was reared and educated in England, but nevertheless her anglicizations are distracting and seem affected. It also seems affected to spell "dissension" archaically as "dissention" (p. 153), and to print "u" as "v" in quoted material, as in "Vs" (Us) (p. 41) or "vpon" (upon) (p. 59). If one is going to do that, why not also ask the typesetter to print quotations with the long "s" that looks similar to the lower-case "f"? (Actually, I wouldn't so much object to that, though it would also come across as affected: at least the long "s" is still an "s," though of archaic form, whereas a "v" is not a "u" at all.) These are, of course, trivial items, but when I encounter them, I think, "Come on, Harvard University Press copy-editors, get with it!"

After all the foregoing griping, it may appear that (1) I am a detail-obsessed curmudgeon of uncommon degree, and (2) I disliked the book. The first point may be true, but the second is not. I look forward to seeing how others eventually build on Malcolm's scholarship.

From T. Markus Funk, "Is the Second Amendment Really Such a Riddle? Tracing the Historical "Origins of an Anglo-American Right" 39 Howard Law Journal 411 (1995):

Few topics of contemporary social, moral, and political debate can provoke as much raw emotion and open hostility as the Second Amendment, particularly in relation to the topic of gun prohibition. This subject routinely causes many well-intentioned people of whatever view to give up all pretense of courtesy and reason in favor of ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. Readers of history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right will find these ugly by-products of the contemporary conflict refreshingly absent. Malcolm clearly keeps her distance from any broad normative judgments about the social utilities or costs of civilian firearms possession, offering instead a sober, scholarly, historical discussion of the Amendment's origins. Meticulously tracing the British history of regulations on firearms ownership from the Middle Ages on, she provides a detailed and illuminating history that includes the English Bill of Rights and, a century later, the American one. Because it is only in this historical context that the Second Amendment's meaning can be fully understood and appreciated, Malcolm's book is essential reading for anyone interested in this complex and controversial subject.

I like how the author explained exactly what he wanted to

This book was one of a pair I received recently that dealt with gun issues. The other was a poorly-written rabidly paranoid tract called Guns Save Lives. Malcolm's book, while not great, is a vast improvement over the other one.

In this book, Malcolm traces the history of the use of firearms in England and how they related to crime rates. Her thesis is that gun ownership has little if any negative effect on crime and in fact may make things safer. She compares and contrasts the policies and crime rates of England and the United States and finds the U.S. policies more effective.

As a history, this book is pretty good, but Malcolm fluctuates between objective history and subjective opinion piece. As a result, it often seems that she is fitting her history to support a specific conclusion. While she is reasonably objective overall, there are places where she uses gaps in historical information (particularly in medieval times) to draw certain inferences that fit with her ideas and either ignores or glosses over other interpretations.

The final part of her book, the England/America comparison is the most opinionated. Unfortunately, as she herself illustrates, the crime statistics of the two countries are like apples and oranges, which limits (although does not completely eliminate) the effectiveness of her arguments.

Overall, this book probably rates three-and-a-half stars: it is not great, but not bad either. If you find this subject interesting as history, it may be a good read as long as you understand that it has a definite slant that you may or may not agree with. On the other hand, if you are looking for a book on the subject of gun rights/gun control, this book may also be good; even though some of the arguments Malcolm raises are on the weak side, she does raise some thought-provoking issues.

This book was recommended to me by Chris Bird, author of The Concealed Handgun Manual. Malcolm's contribution is a highly readable history of violence in Great Britain and it's nearly inverse association with firearm availability. It is worth the read just for the history and fascinating details like what generated the cliche "read the Riot Act" and why English police have historically not carried firearms. This book nicely complements the works of John Lott, Jr in demonstrating why gun control makes great rhetoric and political demagoguery but lousy, counterproductive policy. I wish it were available in electronic format so I could load it into my pocket PC for immediate availability when I have occasion to debate liberals and their unfortunate, misguided victims.

Joyce Lee Malcolm has put together an excellent, very readable study that should cause many to rethink the claims that Britain has a lower homicide rate because they have so many gun control regulations. What Malcolm shows is that British murder rates were declining for centuries before gun control was started and had reached very low rates by the turn of the last century. It is only once gun control was implemented that the crime rate began to slowly rise. Malcolm's findings should be a warning to those who rely on simple cross-sectional comparisons, without taking into account that crime rates can vary for many different reasons. Any one interested in history generally or in the gun debate in particular will find this very interesting reading.

John R. Lott, Jr.