District of Columbia v. Heller

Second amendment supporters like myself were given some encouragement by this decision this week. It scares me to think this was a 5-4 decision, however, and even the opinion of the court contained some questionable reasoning.

Good:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

(Emphasis added.)

Amen.

But...

Bad:

(f) ... United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on... laws
forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications
on the commercial sale of arms.

(Again, emphasis added.)

What?! Are you guys smoking crack? Did you miss that part that says "shall not be infringed"? Last I knew, that phrase meant you can't place restrictions on the right here and there as you see fit.

And don't even get me started on Stevens' dissent. Oh Boy. Yeah. I'm really trying. Not. To. Say. Something. Really. Nasty...