This Article seeks to return to the intent of the Symposium, which was to stimulate a meaningful dialogue on the modern Second Amendment. More specifically, it proposes a return to the states’ rights model that predated the Supreme Court’s narrow decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago by using the Article V process set forth directly in the Constitution to address modern concerns about firearms. The proposal flows from a healthy skepticism about the role of the federal government in interpreting gun regulations, as well as a desire to avoid the inevitable follow-up decisions from a very fractured and often unpredictable Supreme Court.
Penrose, Meg, "Constitution's Most Controversial and Misunderstood Provision Symposium Article" (2014). Connecticut Law Review. 246.