Saturday, June 28, 2008
When Heller came down a few days ago, I only read the majority opinion. I'd been warned the dissents were vomit-inducing. So I'm just dipping into them now. Turns out Justice Stevens thinks it's a case about duck hunting.
Whether it also protects the right to
possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting
and personal self-defense is the question presented by
this case.
The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. So that's 9 on the side of an individual right.
The text of the Amendment, its history, and our
decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939),
provide a clear answer to that question. In legal writing we were taught that the word "clear" is a tipoff that something's murky or just plain wrong.
Breyer:
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
Whether it also protects the right to
possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting
and personal self-defense is the question presented by
this case.
The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. So that's 9 on the side of an individual right.
The text of the Amendment, its history, and our
decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939),
provide a clear answer to that question. In legal writing we were taught that the word "clear" is a tipoff that something's murky or just plain wrong.
Breyer:
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
Comments:
Post a Comment
