D. Henigan, The Mythic Second: Constitutional Fantasy at the D.C. Circuit Should Not Destroy Our Nation's Gun Policies Legal Times, (March 26, 2007).

On Friday, March 9, the earth moved on the gun-control issue. For the first time in our nation's history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun law as a violation of the Second Amendment. With a 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, the city's restrictive handgun law was held unconstitutional. And as a threat to gun regulation, the Second Amendment moved from rhetoric to reality.

R. Bhowmik, "Our Second Amendment Rights Are Not Eroded – Our Understanding Of Them, However, Is," Church & Society Magazine, Vol. 90, No. 5 (May/June 2000).

This article confronts the public's misunderstanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment by examining the historical and legal underpinnings of the amendment. The author concludes that the Second Amendment does not provide individuals with unbridled rights to firearm ownership and the Second Amendment is no barrier to reasonable gun control measures, including licensing and registration.

D. Henigan, "Guns and the Constitution: The Myth of Second Amendment Protection For Firearms in America," Aletheia Press, Northampton, Mass. (1995).

The seminal Second Amendment case of the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Miller, held that the Constitutional right to bear arms is limited to the maintenance of a well-organized state militia. The author refutes the media and gun lobby perpetuation of the myth that there is a fundamental right to private ownership of firearms.

D. Henigan, "Militias Misinterpret Constitution," National Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 41 (June 12, 1995)

This article links the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment – as purportedly guaranteeing the right of private citizens to bear arms in opposition to a potentially tyrannical government – to the rise of paramilitary groups. The author traces this misinterpretation to NRA rhetoric and argues that violent opposition to the government, as envisioned by private militias and their supporters, is contrary to democratic principles.

D. Henigan, "Exploding the NRA's Constitutional Myth," Legal Times, Vol. XIII, No. 47 (April 29, 1991).

This article highlights the way in which the Brady Law debates focused around the myth that the Second Amendment guarantees a broad, personal right to bear arms. The author discusses case law to dispel this widely accepted myth and to argue for honest debate on gun control laws.

D. Henigan,"The Right to be Armed: A Constitutional Illusion," San Francisco Barrister Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 12, (Dec. 1989)

The NRA contention that legislators cannot limit accessibility to guns without offending the Constitution is unfounded. This article challenges the widely held notion that the Second Amendment guarantees each individual a right to own a gun by analyzing the textual language, history, and court interpretation of the Second Amendment.

K. Ehrman & D. Henigan, "The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century: Have You Seen Your Militia Lately?," Univ. of Dayton Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Fall 1989).

An in-depth review of the historical context within which the Second Amendment developed reveals that there are no Constitutional restrictions on the ability of legislators to enact tough gun laws. Further, the authors analyze various decisions to show that the Second Amendment does not support the right of private citizens to own guns for non-militia related purposes.

M. Polston, "Obscuring the Second Amendment," Virginia Resolves, Vol. 34, No. 32 (Spring 1994).

The NRA embraces a myopic view of the history surrounding the Second Amendment's enactment, and misconstrues its text to provide a right for private gun ownership and a prohibition on gun control laws. The author demonstrates the errors in the key premises of an NRA-backed article by looking at case law and the Second Amendment's historical context.

D. Henigan, "Arms, Anarchy and The Second Amendment," Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Fall 1991).

In 1989, Sanford Levinson claimed that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, read together, provide ordinary citizens with the right to bear arms in opposition to a potentially tyrannical government. The author demonstrates that Levinson's theory is not supported by the Constitution, by explaining the context in which the Second Amendment was enacted, and Supreme Court decisions.