Shoobee
Regular Member
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
After reading Scalia's write-up of the USSC decision in Heller vs DC, I got several impressions about the viewpoints of the justices in this case on this topic of the 2nd Amendment.
The first obvious thing is that the 5 of them in the majority on this opinion believe that everyone deserves to keep and bear within their homes a handgun of their choice for self defense, under their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The other 4 in the minority however, all from NYC, do not hold this to be true.
The next obvious thing is that Scalia believes the states have the right to make whatever rules governing open carrying or concealed carrying that they want. He seems to hold states' rights in high esteem, with regard to carrying in public, outside of the home.
Third is that this ruling obviously applies specifically to handguns, and it sheds little light on the courts views of long guns, other than to state that sawed off shotguns are not considered protected by the 2nd Amendment.
This is the most current legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that we have on this Earth. It is relevant because the Roberts' court is the constitutionally designated authority.
You can read Scalia's majority view in about half an hour, about 50 pages. I would not worry about the two minority dissents, they seem flawed and only present the NYC viewpoint, that all guns are bad and that cities and states and the district may make whatever rules they want in ignoring the 2nd Amendment.
After reading Scalia's opinion, I would be interested to hear anyone else's impressions of it, from careful reading.
After reading Scalia's write-up of the USSC decision in Heller vs DC, I got several impressions about the viewpoints of the justices in this case on this topic of the 2nd Amendment.
The first obvious thing is that the 5 of them in the majority on this opinion believe that everyone deserves to keep and bear within their homes a handgun of their choice for self defense, under their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The other 4 in the minority however, all from NYC, do not hold this to be true.
The next obvious thing is that Scalia believes the states have the right to make whatever rules governing open carrying or concealed carrying that they want. He seems to hold states' rights in high esteem, with regard to carrying in public, outside of the home.
Third is that this ruling obviously applies specifically to handguns, and it sheds little light on the courts views of long guns, other than to state that sawed off shotguns are not considered protected by the 2nd Amendment.
This is the most current legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that we have on this Earth. It is relevant because the Roberts' court is the constitutionally designated authority.
You can read Scalia's majority view in about half an hour, about 50 pages. I would not worry about the two minority dissents, they seem flawed and only present the NYC viewpoint, that all guns are bad and that cities and states and the district may make whatever rules they want in ignoring the 2nd Amendment.
After reading Scalia's opinion, I would be interested to hear anyone else's impressions of it, from careful reading.
Last edited: