« Suit to overturn public housing gun bans in San Francisco | Main | Transcript of online chat yesterday »
Heller, women and gays
Ann Althouse suggests that the Heller women's amicus brief may have been abstracted into Scalia's opinion. "The argument about handguns and upper-body strength is explicitly a women's rights argument in at least one brief..." Given the words employed in both, it's convincing to me.
And Gay Patriot suggests that gays decided will benefit from the decision. He argues "I believe this decision is the best ruling for gays in many years..."
Sounds like everyone wins out, except the editorial board of the New York Times. Like its publish, they may already be packing heat. Much the same in California.
Comments
While we are on the issue of identity politics, I notice that the MSM is heaping scorn upon that nasty old Italian, Scalia. Yet, when the D.C. Circuit's Silberman (a Jew) issued the exact same ruling earlier in the case, the MSM was largely silent.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at June 28, 2008 07:16 AM
Mr. Hardy,one can not begin to thank you enough for your work and superb documentary "In Search of the Second Amendment".Kudos also to those that collaborated with you in achieving the results you did!
May I ask what Mr. Hellers response is to this outcome,I believe the gentleman's first name is Richard? Has he indicated how the outcome has changed himself or his views?
Posted by: Elle at June 28, 2008 05:29 PM
It's more likely that Scalia had closely read Paul Clement's brief. Foot note 9 deals with various strengths of people, and Scalia is familiar enough with firearms that he has more than once heard the basic term "upper body strength." Here's the footnote from Clement's brief:
"The practical adequacy of long guns as a means of self-defense within the home will likely vary from individual to individual. Some disabled
persons, as well as some individuals with less than average physical strength, might have particular difficulty using rifles or shotguns."
It's not only women who can have not much upper body strength, and some women have excellent upper body strength. ... They may not be typical, but they're women too. It's best not to generalize by sex, and Scalia was correct simply to consider PERSONS with not so much upper body strength.
Posted by: AMB at June 28, 2008 05:53 PM