To determine realistically if this group of professors are "liberal" would take more information than how they view the 2nd Amendment. We would need to know where they stand on many other issues, both Constitutional and otherwise. Not to mention that the NY Times labelling somebody as having a certain character trait or viewpoint does not make it so. In fact, based on their track record, the opposite would be just as likely.

The problem as I see it is that the Constitution is a very starightforward document in a complicated time. I try to look at thing throught the lense of common sense. The Bill of Rights is about preserving the rights of the individual, or at the very least the rights of the people in general. When they were talking about state's rights or powers they use the word "states". When they talk about the federal governement they use the term "United States", and "Congress". When they talk about the rights of the people they use the word "people". It's really a no-brainer, but because there are a whole pile of people out there who want to make their mark on the world by "interpreting" the Constitution we have a good deal of confusion on the issue. The only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. If it had been intended to be a protection of states' rights it would have been written that way as it is in the 10th Amendment.

I don't think that liberals are "the bad guys" neccessarily. I do think that most of the things that liberals seem to want for our society have been proven not to work historically, or fly in the face of human nature. i.e. that if you make guns illegal all the criminals will turn them in. Or that if you provide a person with income for not working that they'll run right out and try to find a job. I would dispute that there was ever a "complete scholarly and judicial concensus" on this issue. If there were our rights under the 2nd Amnedment would have been stripped away by now. I do find it a little sad that so much credit is given to a group of "liberal law professors" for coming to a conclusion that anyone with a high school level of reading comprehension should be able to reach in 30 seconds of uninterrupted thought.