« On stopping schoolground killers | Main | Winnetka IL repeals its handgun ban »
The inside story on Parker/Heller
At Reason Online.
UPDATE: Eric links in comments to an interesting post. I've got to note that, to those who haven't done it, law is supposedly a science. It isn't. It's human chaos with some semblance of form. Perhaps I'm biased, but Heller -- an absolute federal ban -- should have been a hands-down winner. Yet it broke on a 5-4. The game of litigation isn't anywhere near as predictable as poker. More like playing 7 card stud where you get five cards now, and in 2-3 years we'll deal out the rest. And based on unpredictables (who resigns from the Court, who gets re-elected, what the Senate looks like and what their views on firearms are, with nobody vetting them for that), the deck we deal from may be mostly face cards or all clubs or only low, odd, numbers.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
I was interviewed for the book. I don't know if I made the final cut or not but I have the book on order.
Bill, it doesn't "square." That never stopped DiFi before. It will take several more court cases to get close to that issue (imo). What Gura is doing in McDonald v. Chicago is just the start (incorporation vs the states). Ultimately we've got to deal with what I call "militia purpose." Simply put, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution defines the missions of the militia. So, if suitable for militia purposes (defend against invasion, put down rebellions, law enforcement), an arm is protected by the 2nd. This makes our black robed masters pee in their pants, because it would legalize full-auto weapons.
A thorough understanding of the Second Amendment's history, something not addressed in the Heller decision because it is a textual analysis of a sentence, clarifies disputed points about intent.
Since there is little or no hope stopping new gun bans by the Congress, all we are going to have is the court system. I understood the incorporation part of the McDonald v. Chicago suit. And the slow process to broaden the 'Heller' decision.
But -- Reading the Heller decision, the SC seemed to say that Heller correctly broadened the application of the Second Amendment, from militia to include self defense. In the discussion section of the decision, I guess you lawyers call that 'dicta', militia use arms was discussed often. You would think the very last thing that could be banned would be the U.S. Army infantry rifle, the civilian versions of the M-16 and look a likes, the foundation of the reason for the Second Amendment in the first place.
Interestingly, CCW has removed any pretense of connecting gun bans to crime, this line of argument seems to have been dropped from the gun banners language. At least it has vanished in my state of Florida.
For a not-too sympathetic analysis of the Reason article, you should check this post by Charles Cotton at his site, TexasCHLforum.com. Mr. Cotton's posts are generally very restrained and even, but he let'er rip on this one. Do go read it:
I definitely think Charles is correct on this point: that we all got very very very very lucky that Bush won, and that he got a couple of his nominees in before this case hit SCOTUS. And I don't see how Levy/Gura could have planned or counted on that.
elb
Would someone please tell Charles Cotton that the fight is over? The NRA forces and the Levy team forces joined forces quite a few months back. They're not fighting any more, and they're seeing one another just fine and interacting just fine, all for the good of the cause.
And for heavens sake, WE WON! Could the internecine fighting please stop?
The writer of that Reason piece just chose a spin and spun something out quickly. I doubt that even he sees it as any great and definitive history of how the win came about. He was just cranking out copy.
I read the article, and it got me to thinking ...
I have a question ... did Heller not say that the self defense was part of the original intent and that was additive with the militia and defense of the country from tyranny? If so, I would expect a militia member was supposed to show up equipped to serve, bringing their own arms, which would presume that militia rifles and supplies would be the primary arm brought to muster -- And therefore the primary arm protected by the Second Amendment.
Question -- How does this square with the new proposed AW ban thinking, which bans military style rifles used by the militia just because Diane Feinstien is scared by them??