WarOnGuns Correspondent Phillip C. just sent me two links:
After 217 years, Supreme Court affirms the right to bear arms
You're right, Phillip, when you say "They managed to slip a little bit of bias in, but it looks like they were trying to stay neutral for a change."
What I find most promising:
I don't completely agree with this guy, but his opinion piece promotes an individual right to a general audience, so it works in our favor. I do agree that Judge Scalia was being activist, and it may surprise you to find out I agree with a point made by Judge Breyer in his dissent, although obviously not for the same ultimate reason (see pg. 42-43 of Breyer dissent, or 155-156/157 of the .pdf file):
Scalia manufactured those unnecessary concessions out of thin air, and happy as most gun owners who haven't read the majority opinion are about the outcome, we damn well deserve to know it.
After 217 years, Supreme Court affirms the right to bear arms
You're right, Phillip, when you say "They managed to slip a little bit of bias in, but it looks like they were trying to stay neutral for a change."
What I find most promising:
Q. Will the ruling allow those who are arrested or convicted on gun charges to challenge their cases?High-court ruling recognizes that gun laws only disarm victims
A. Yes.
I don't completely agree with this guy, but his opinion piece promotes an individual right to a general audience, so it works in our favor. I do agree that Judge Scalia was being activist, and it may surprise you to find out I agree with a point made by Judge Breyer in his dissent, although obviously not for the same ultimate reason (see pg. 42-43 of Breyer dissent, or 155-156/157 of the .pdf file):
I am similarly puzzled by the majority’s list, in Part III of its opinion, of provisions that in its view would survive Second Amendment scrutiny. These consist of (1) “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons”; (2) “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons”; (3) “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by . . . the mentally ill”; (4)“laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”; and (5)government “conditions and qualifications” attached “to the commercial sale of arms.” Ante, at 54. Why these? Is it that similar restrictions existed in the late 18th century? The majority fails to cite any colonial analogues.Bingo. Sometimes your enemy hands you a chair. Don't be afraid to bash with it.
Scalia manufactured those unnecessary concessions out of thin air, and happy as most gun owners who haven't read the majority opinion are about the outcome, we damn well deserve to know it.