I like your math but stats are invariably misleading when applied to SCOTUS opinions and Congressional votes given all the maneuvering that goes on in the vote trading process. I would like to know how many times Scalia agress with the ACLU, as compared to Cheney. That would be a project indeed.

There is another outcome to this decision which I think leads us into the venue of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Most modern, faux conservatives of the Bush-Cheney ilk, their minions, and camp followers are no doubt celebrating this ruling as a great victory. They have striven mightily towards this day of joy. I believe that this cabal has also been pushing this country towards classic Fascism of the corporate variety. How ironic might it be if this decision winds up saving our country from these evil, but bumbling oafs?

No thanks Bob. That’s you fight with a persistent adversary.

Seeing you’re on the ‘distinction between tyranny and usurpation’ wavelength, evidenced by your last post re Jefferson, perhaps you can explain why comprehending the order of operations regarding powers conferred and rights retained is crucial to understanding and interpreting our republican form of government.

The point seems lost on those obsess in calling me ‘Thingum.’

Regards,

Bob

Your points are well taken, and your analysis about violence is undoubtedly correct. I think the point made today is that a free people have the right to possess the means of maintaining their security and their freedom. We do well to remember that our freedoms are the fruit of armed conflict, and unfortunately that formula applies with few exceptions today. Jefferson’s motto summarizes beatifully the sentiment: “”Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” One of his master works however takes into account the history and states the rule:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

If DC v. Heller comes to stand for that Jeffersonian proposition, it will find few detractors. Scalia, to his credit, made the point that the right is subject to reasonable restrictions and I do not think we will see gangs of men walking around with RPG’s anytime soon.

Considering that roughly half of Americans possess at least 1 weapon, statistically we would have far greater violence if this were so. (And you can blame criminalization of drugs for much of America’s violence.)

I applaud Mr. Turley once again for his consistent stance in regard to the Constitution, irrespective of his personal politics.

You, who as far as I can tell, has only read Immanuel Kant three times – for pleasure!

JT, is talking about the resolution of a legal argument that has been going on since the 1930′s – whether the conditions at the time of the writing of the Constitution and BOR are applicable today as to indivual gun ownership.

I’ve had the same two perfectly cogent arguments, myself, in support of the SCOTUS majority, today. And I don’t own a gun-never have!

You are correct as Scalia himself noted that the right pre-dated the drafting of the Constitution since the Amendment says the right shall not be “infringed” implying its pre-existence, rather than its creation. Good lawyering by you, as always.

An individual’s right to KBA existing a priori is a condition precedent to a Second Amendment ‘securing’ said right.

Failure to acknowledge the truth contained within the analytic judgment above leads to a misunderstanding of the entire order of operations of the Constitution.

E.g. this is why you had someone like Gonzalez saying “The constitution does not confer a right of habeas corpus.”

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/06/23/supreme-court-holds-heller-second-amendment-case-last-case-to-be-announced-from-march-sitting/#comment-15217

I am hoping that our bumper sticker artists will simply move on to other unresolved constitutional questions such as . . .

YOU WILL HAVE TO PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS OFF MY GAY MARRIAGE LICENSE

YOU WILL HAVE TO PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS OFF MY GAY HUSBAND

YOU WILL HAVE TO PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS OFF MY INTERNET PORN

YOU WILL HAVE TO PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS OFF MY INTRASTATE ENTERPRISE

YOU WILL HAVE TO PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS OFF MY FOIS GRAS

Okay, I am still working on it.

JOnathan

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

rcampbell,

You and others make perfectly reasonable arguments to dundar. The problem with them is that they are, perfectly reasonable.

Jill

if you were really so swayed by the 80% rule, you would be bound to accept the rejection of nearly 80% of Americans of Bush personally, his foreign and domestic policies, his conduct and the.
I’ll bet about 80% of Americans opposed the abolition of slavery, civil rights legislation, women’s sufferage and the introduction of seat belts. What’s your point?

Even the blind pig….

Based on Madison’s introduction of the legislation as text to be inserted into the original Constitution, I have to conclude that Scalia got it right. Wikipedia has the history correct:

“The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies Congress’s power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibitions on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action.”

As to the other case, it sometimes seems that one of the unwritten rules of law, is that, all other things equal, millionaires almost always win.