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

« Interpreting text | Main | Vlog of Second Amendment scholars conference »

My latest article

Posted by David Hardy · 12 January 2010 01:50 PM

"Ducking the Bullet: District of Columbia v. Heller and the Stevens Dissent". As you might expect, I don't give the dissent a very good review.

18 Comments | Leave a comment

Turk Turon | January 12, 2010 3:16 PM | Reply

I read the whole thing, and the footnotes. Good work!

475okh | January 12, 2010 3:44 PM | Reply

Great article. Have always said the interesting part of Heller is the dissenting opinion. How can people like Stevens, obviously highly educated, be such frauds? Thank heavens we did duck the bullet.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | January 12, 2010 6:33 PM | Reply

Simple. Stevens, and elites like him, just don't trust the unwashed masses with the ownership and possession of firearms.

Some elitists don't trust the masses with free speech. Others don't trust the masses with the ownership of property. We in the masses have to be eternally alert because these elites will strip us of everything if they can.

Carl from Chicago | January 12, 2010 7:05 PM | Reply

David:

Thank you. While it does not please me at all to note the serious inconsistencies in the Heller dissent ... it pleases me to no end that you have studied the dissent and have pointed out the inconsistencies.

Carl from Chicago | January 12, 2010 7:21 PM | Reply

The Stevens dissent in Heller, had it become law, would have ... done so on grounds that were demonstrably, clearly, and repeatedly wrong, with errors that could best be attributed to carelessness approaching arrogance and at worse to
indifference because the conclusion was predetermined.

That is an incredibly powerful statement indeed.

David E. Young | January 12, 2010 9:37 PM | Reply

Absolutely excellent! Clear, thorough, concise, it puts several stakes through the heart of Justice Stevens' Heller dissent.

James | January 12, 2010 11:43 PM | Reply

Justice Steven's legal "reasoning" can be revealed by the interview in which he stated to the reporter "that he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration. The experience, he said, raised questions in his mind about the fairness of the death penalty."

Jeff | January 13, 2010 5:50 AM | Reply

Do you think that there is any possibility that this article will ever come to the attention of any of the 4 dissenting justices?

RKV | January 13, 2010 6:40 AM | Reply

"[D]emonstrably, clearly, and repeatedly wrong, with errors that could best
be attributed to carelessness approaching arrogance and at worse to
indifference because the conclusion was predetermined."

OK, Dave, don't hold back now - tell us how you REALLY feel about Stevens' dissent in Heller.

Chris | January 13, 2010 7:21 AM | Reply

Excellent article!

Carl from Chicago | January 13, 2010 10:59 AM | Reply

Do you think that there is any possibility that this article will ever come to the attention of any of the 4 dissenting justices?
Posted by: Jeff at January 13, 2010 05:50 AM

Yes, if you mail them each a copy.


Honorable Associate Justice John Paul Stevens
Honorable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Honorable Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Honorable Associate Justice David H. Souter (Retired)

United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

Anonymous | January 13, 2010 11:23 AM | Reply

I'm sure the reply briefs will cite it. I'd suggest not mailing it to the dissenters. Instead send one copy to Justice Scalia, and let him have the pleasure of giving them copies just before the Court votes.

scott in phx az | January 13, 2010 4:14 PM | Reply

Good analyis as usual for you.

It is clear that the 4 dissenting justices in Heller didn't want to recognize the right but there is no way to put together a winning argument when the facts are against you.

So, you deny, ignore, willfully construe, and otherwise try to decieve your way to victory.

That any SC judge would do this over the 2A when the history is now so clear is amazing no matter how much they want to deny the right.

I'm mean, wouldn't it be embarrassing to have your analysis so easily destroyed?

Hank Archer | January 14, 2010 9:49 AM | Reply

Where can I find the source of this Stevens' quote about the attack on Yamamoto?

James | January 14, 2010 11:42 AM | Reply

It is referenced many places on the web, a more complete description is at http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/justice-john-paul-stevenss-perplexing-view-of-the-death-penalty/, with a link to a New York Times profile of Stevens at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin from which the statement was gleaned.

Hank Archer | January 14, 2010 2:48 PM | Reply

Thanks. Amazing. How do people lose their common sense and get so confused?

anonymous | January 14, 2010 3:11 PM | Reply

"carelessness, arrogance, predetermined, indifference."

how does such a personal attack on Justice Stevens' integrity help your credibility at the Court, considering four justices signed onto it and the other five probably don't care for having their colleagues insulted?

Maybe it felt real good to write that, but it wasn't smart if you want people to take you seriously.

C. H. Cox III | January 14, 2010 3:40 PM | Reply

If -- and it's not a very big "if" in my opinion -- Mr.Hardy's analysis of the dissent in the Heller case is accuurate, then it speals volumes about the decline in quality of the clerks hired by some of the Justices.

I did not attend one of the "top tier" law schools, however, I am sure this sample of legal reasoning and writing would not have passed muster. Or maybe it is that my school was more intent on teaching law than promoting political correctness.

Leave a comment