Regarding the April 2002 Second Amendment conference at Stanford University I had been meaning to write up what I saw at that conference but it looks like I never did. The conference was called and run by the Stanford Law School, but the History department helped make it happen. American History Professor Jack Rakove was one of the panelists and clearly was the local impetus. Belliar's book and Bancroft prize also created interest in the subject and in holding the conference. http://rkba.org/research/stanford-law-conference.txt http://rkba.org/research/bellesiles/stanford-chan-flyer.html My overall impressions were that the law and history scholars on our side had new and interesting research, and the ones on the other side had old, misinformed attitudes about the Second Amendment. The non-specialist academics from Stanford Law pretty much had old collectivist interpretations of militias, etc. In my opinion they simply demonstrated their ignorance. The anti-individual rights panelists also seemed to bring little of substance to the discussion. Bellesiles talked about his research, but little formal response or challenges were presented to him. But then again, it was not a debate. Panels are for different scholars to share their findings, in the hope that they may others show some interesting areas of research, etc. Again they're not so much debates as a friendly sharing of notes. When there are disputes, they are so subtle that only those very familiar with the terms and minute details of the arguments will often be able to notice that something controversial was even spoken. The tone is always cordial and polite, even when someone is being broiled. :-) After the conference in both private correspondence and on the Hoover Institution PBS TV program Uncommon Knowledge, Rakove essentially let Bellesiles hang out to dry by himself. He essentially said he was agnostic on Belliar's claims and would withhold judgement until hearing the findings of other experts, perhaps referring to Professors like probate scholar James Lindgren: http://www.law.nwu.edu/faculty/fulltime/Lindgren/Lindgren.html http://www.law.nwu.edu/faculty/fulltime/Lindgren/lindwmmary.PDF Rakove hardly gave a ringing endorsement of Bellesiles' work. Though Rakove does favor more restrictions on private firearms, he seemed very unwilling to support Bellesiles' scholarship. Wise move on his part, or perhaps he already knew the answer. Some of the results of academic research into Bellesiles' claims can be found in the William and Mary Quarterly forum titled "Historians and Guns": http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/guns_intro.html In a sense it's a good thing for academia that Bellesiles' fraud was caught and Bellesiles fired. It means academia is still somewhat functional. Jeff Chan