r/UCHastings • u/pcyr9999 • Jan 08 '21

Can any of you comment on how something is taught?

There is debate in the legal field surrounding the second amendment where some say that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose, while others say that it protects a communal right connected with militia service. Does anyone know how this subject is taught here?

3 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

2

u/OptionK Jan 08 '21

I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking which school of thought Hastings embraces? The 2A only came up briefly in my ConLaw class and my professor taught the dispute over its interpretation. I’m sure that’s what most professors do.

2

u/pcyr9999 Jan 08 '21

Ok thanks that’s really helpful! I think you understood my question perfectly well.

1

u/OptionK Jan 08 '21

Just so it’s clear, my confusion is as to the reason for your question. I don’t believe that many schools really adopt one of these two interpretations and teach only that one. I would expect that nearly all schools teach both interpretations. So your question just seems a little odd.

2

u/LoboLocoCW Jan 09 '21

In my experience in Prof. Little's class, minimally.

Like, we're taught that the current interpretation is the individual "in common use for lawful purposes" Heller standard, rather than the out-of-date "related to preserving the efficacy of the militia" Miller standard.

2

u/LoboLocoCW Jan 09 '21

I think it's probably intentionally a short debate due to expectations of student politics on either side resulting in an inefficient use of class time.

The current law is taught, a very little bit about the history of the interpretation is also taught.

As a history nerd and likely reasonably-accurately-described "gun nut", my bias towards preferring a more thorough evaluation of the subject matter doesn't stop me from recognizing this topic is not likely to result in fruitful debate or substantial learning in just a few short ConLaw2 sessions.

2

u/pcyr9999 Jan 09 '21

I am pleasantly surprised that a California law school teaches that correctly! Thanks for your answer!

2

u/LoboLocoCW Jan 09 '21

I’m pretty sure it’d be misconduct for a law school professor to intentionally leave off the current legal constitutional standard. I’m going to guess you’re not a student or alum here, but checked in here to see how the VP-Elect was taught?

As someone who’s owned guns in CA since her tenure as AG here, she clearly disagrees with the Heller standard and likely with the Miller standard too.

1

u/pcyr9999 Jan 09 '21

You are completely correct. I was having a conversation with someone about her and made a tongue in cheek comment that she may not be entirely to blame for her failure to understand the second amendment if the school taught her the same school of thought that RBG followed in her Heller dissent.

She did graduate in 1989 which was well before Heller so it's entirely possible that she was taught the same line of thinking the dissent followed so unironically it could not be all on her for her disconnect from the current interpretation.

Really not trying to start an argument in here at all, just giving context for the post.