Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« ACLU's thoughts on Heller | Main | Online chat on Heller today »

Prof. Keller on Heller, Justice Breyer and culture wars

Posted by David Hardy · 27 June 2008 08:11 AM

He posts over at The Volokh Conspiracy. Interesting point. In an earlier school voucher case, Breyer considered a potential harm to a constitutional interest (that controversial religions might created funded schools, that the public would demand that measures be taken against them, and that that would lead to entanglement of church and state, even if the voucher system itself did not) sufficient to vote to strike a law. No need for opponents of the law to prove probability here; the presumption is that this will occur, or at least that possibility of this is enough.

In Heller, it's the other way around. Instead of guessing/projecting/speculating in favor of the constitutional interest, Breyer does so in favor of considerations weighing against the interest. He notes that DC's crime rate rose after the ban, but then coincidence does not prove causation, and there is no way to know what the crime rate would be without the ban. That'd sound like a reason to strike the ban: constitutional guarantee, and people proposing a restriction cannot show, one way or the other, that the restriction is beneficial or not. But now he says that call is up to the legislature, its enactment and judgment that things are good is presumed correct unless the party supporting the right can disprove it: "the question here is whether they [the arguments] are strong enough to destroy judicial confidence in the reasonableness of a legislature that rejects them. "

· Parker v. DC

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Mike | June 27, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply

On Nugent's Talkback forum, I posted a comment I thought was kinda cute. I'll put it here too:

"Five out of nine Supreme Court Justices were smart enough to realize that if you're going to piss off half of the population, it's better to piss off the half that doesn't have guns."

doug in colorado | June 27, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply

I like that...

Breyer's not a judge, he's just a liberal hack...and the Constitution means whatever he says it means, damn it. Why would you expect consistency of a Liberal other than to expect them to be consistently liberal?

RKM | June 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply

Thanks for the quote Mike.

Stolen! :>)

DavidL | June 27, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply

Free men have always had the right to keep and bear arms. Serfs never have. Breyer would have us all be serfs. Are you a free man, or are you a serf?

Leave a comment