Henry E Schaffer wrote: > http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Reading through this, I'm struck by a repeated theme: The opinion of the court repeatedly references Justice Steven's dissent, and in several instances literally belittles his view. To wit, on page 30: "But even assuming that this legislative history is relevant, JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record." Is this common on a close (5-4) decision? And a couple of questions about the precedents that are set: The decision says the 14th amendment issue was not presented by this case (footnote 23 on page 48), although the dicta clearly supports incorporation (page 43-44). So, incorporation doesn't appear to be "official". Can we expect that such a case will be filed soon? Will it have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, or will the appeals courts read the writing on the wall? I'm a bit confused about the type of weapons that have been protected by this ruling. It appears to fall back on Miller and the qualifier "in common use at the time". This appears to put the cart before the horse and offers an incentive to ban a particular weapon before it can be put into common use. However, I could see this qualifier being used to challenge a ban on "scary-looking rifles" (yes, I mean the expired assault-weapon ban), since they are readily available and in common use for a variety of purposes -- both sporting and defensive. Finally, I found it almost comical that the Court explicitly affirmed the meaning of this statement in Presser v. Illinois (page 47): The opinion explained that the right "is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." 92 U. S., at 553. If I remember correctly, Quilici v. Morton Grove dismissed this as "irrelevant dicta". Footnote 24 on page 52 is pretty strongly-worded, as well -- it slams all the mis-interpretations of US v. Miller. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
