Historian David E. Young takes the brief filed by other 'professional' historians in support of the Chicago gun ban to task. From his message:
Just thought I'd let you know that the first part of my comments on historical errors in McDonald amicus briefs is up at On Second Opinion. The first deals with problems in the English/Early American historians' brief. Six of its twenty-one signers were also signers of the Heller historians' brief. Thus, the newer one has the same kinds of problems as that filed in Heller. I suspect there will be several parts or posts dealing with this brief, and several more dealing with one not related to English history. There is a strong attempt in McDonald to re-argue Heller historical points.
That the Chicago briefs are trying to re-argue Heller seems to be the default for most of them. Read the whole thing to see how weak the claims they're making really are and how Anti's need to distort history to defend their beliefs.