The
Heller ruling is somewhat unique in its relative lack of cited case law and precedent; ‘gun rights’ didn’t become an issue until the second half of the 20th Century, when ‘gun control’ measures were enacted during the 60s, a consequence of assassinations of political figures and the popular perception of increasing gun violence.
The bulk of Scalia’s opinion is predicated on primary documents and sources, such as state constitutions after the Foundation Era, English common law, and an ‘understanding at the time’ by the people of the Founding Generation when the Second Amendment was ratified.
The
Heller Majority thus composed a compelling and convincing argument for an individual right, and the minority opinion did the same with regard to a collective right, using much of the same documentation.
The political irony, of course, is that Stevens’ dissent could be used by the far right as justification of the notion that the Second Amendment addresses the right of the people to war against a Federal government perceived ‘tyrannical’:
The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the means by which to guard against that danger. But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The majority opinion, as we know, protects an individual right to posses a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE RELIABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION.
...please refute anything you assume wikipedia has wrong in the post....
Is Miller addressed in either/or DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago?
good gawd you're a tool
