Supreme Court

Supreme Blunder: We Did Not Mean to Dissemble the Disassembled Guns in Heller

Justice Scalia wrote a powerful opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, but the first paragraph quotes the D.C. statute as requiring gun to be dissembled. As many have noted, it is disassembled — dissemble means to put on a false appearance.

Howard Bashman posted the problem here. Well, the opinion got the rest right. Moreover, it could have used disable and triggered a challenge under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

For a copy of the opinion, click here.

6 thoughts on “Supreme Blunder: We Did Not Mean to Dissemble the Disassembled Guns in Heller”

  1. Pingback: Military Blogger Finds Flaw in Supreme Court’s Child Rape Ruling « JONATHAN TURLEY

  2. Thingum wrote:
    “Paranoia strikes deep

    Into your life it will creep… etc.

    Jesus H. Christ.”

    You should know all about that – just because you thought you were being ignored, didn’t mean you weren’t being ignored 😉

    btw, my comprehension level is more than adequate, although I will admit to a certain difficulty understanding why after having stated your point, once, YOU felt the need to repeat it again.

  3. Paranoia strikes deep

    Into your life it will creep… etc.

    Jesus H. Christ.

  4. Patty C:

    I hope you do not consider me “ganging up” against you. I always value your opinion,and I do not take sides in blog disputes among kindred spirits. I like you both for different reasons and I hope both of you will continue to express yourselves as articulately as you both do.”
    ****
    Dearest mespo,
    Not at all – you did exactly what I would have expected,
    as my friend…

    Bob, Esq, is a jerk!

    Sorry!

  5. Patty C:

    I hope you do not consider me “ganging up” against you. I always value your opinion,and I do not take sides in blog disputes among kindred spirits. I like you both for different reasons and I hope both of you will continue to express yourselves as articulately as you both do.

  6. I dunno JT, you might want to take another look here…

    Apparently, Bob Esq, as I regularly and somewhat, affectionately, refer to as ‘Thingum’ (ie Thingum Bob, Esq from EA Poe), wants to nail you to the wall for your use of the word ‘create’ when speaking about the recent SCOTUS 2nd Amendment decision – much like those who ganged up on Scalia over the misspelling of ‘disassemble’.

    To me, he is annoying and his comments are caustic and abrasive,

    Mostly, I choose to ignore him.

    So what?

    I am certainly not a Scalia fan, but I surely know he can criticized for a lot more than mispellings!

    It’s interesting that Thingum holds ‘Lord Scalia'(his insult, not mine) in such contempt when he is, in my view, just as despicable, himself, in so many ways.

    I must say, because I have been asked, publicly, and because there seems to be a lack of understanding I would like to explain:

    From Bob, Esq’s first post I do not respect him(.) – ie period
    – not as a lawyer, not as a dog/pet-owner/breeder or trainer, not as a man, nor as a person.

    He has done noting nor said anything to redeem himself, in my view.
    I have tried to ignore him.

    I enjoyed this site much more before he showed up.

    I also must say to him directly, now, how dare you, try to interfere, here, with my established relationships.

    You are a ‘wuss’ and you would be a bully, in or out, if successful in getting my ‘friends’ to rally against me.

    I dare you to try it again!

    I’m not afraid of you…
    Patty C

    P.S Your AKC German Shepard dogs have BAD manners because YOU do. Consider yourselves on Notice: Anybody showing up on your premises whose bitten without prior warning of the ongoing menace has cause
    – you are responsable.

Comments are closed.