Some Reactions To Heller

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote [Justice Antonin] Scalia, a hunter. Reuters

I agree with the ruling, however, the Constitution does not grant us the right, it enumerates that right. It is a natural law that man is able to defend him or her self. Chuck Mallory

If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it's probably the fact that five of the justices -- a slim majority, but that's all it takes to win -- have come around to seeing things their way. Colbert I. King

What I find very much amusing is that the second dissent in part relies upon laws passed in 18th century America. I mean, I thought the Consitution was an evolving document, and we couldn’t be expected to live our lives according to the dictates of 18th century life. But, lo and behold, the dissention references a law pertaining to the storage of gunpowder, something not necessary for the use of fire-arms today, as proof of the government’s ability to limit the second amendment right. Intriguing. VolMagic

It's good. If Fat Tony Scalia comes anywhere near your home, shoot the motherf*cker. David Ehrenstein

But I must first pass along this rather brilliant observation from professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, who wonders why none of the dissenters cautioned the majority that today's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.) Dahlia Lithwick

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is an important right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly. John McCain

We’re all originalists now. One of the most extraordinary things about this case is that it presented, for the first time in modern memory, a chance for the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of a constitutional right without a heavy overlay of “constitutional law” – a body of relevant decisions from the Supreme Court itself. For “faint-hearted” originalists, like Scalia and others, the existence of non-originalist precedents can be a barrier to reaching originalist results. But here the issue was one of truly first impression, presenting a “clean” controversy. It therefore allowed the Court to address the issues on first principles of constitutional interpretation. Dale Carpenter

How is it 4 justices that could find a right that wasn’t there for terrorists can’t seem to locate the 2nd amendment? Sue

These comments clearly show which side is serious about constitutional rights, and which side isn't.

No comments: