EckerNet.Com

Okay during my more lucid moments this weekend I had the chance to read through all 157 pages of the Heller vs DC decision that was handed down by the US Supreme Court last week. A lot of my initial questions have been answered so at the very least it was worth the effort for that reason alone.

My initial reaction was shock at the fact that the decision was a 5-4 decision. Certainly reading through the oral arguments made it sounded much more one-sided argument than would be explained by 5-4. However, it appears as if both sides simply ceded the individual right argument and instead argue both the scope of the issue and what constitutes reasonable regulation.

My one major disagreement with the decision, and part of the focus of Breyer\’s dissent, is that the majority doesn\’t really indicate what degree of regulation states can use on the use of firearms. It would be nice to have some sort of guideline or I fear that we\’ll be right back in this same spot in the future.

However, on the plus side the majority did state unequivocally that any law that impeded the ability for law-abiding responsible to use weapons, in common use at the time, for the use of self-defense of home and hearth, would be unconstitutional. That\’s a fairly solid unassailable legal footprint from which to fight back the hordes imposing gun control on everyone.

I had originally thought that the dissenting opinions would be more interesting to read through than the majority but I was very very wrong. First they essentially ceded the individual rights point, and tried to making a stand on minor issues but tried to do so from within the construct of Steven\’s majority opinion.

Breyer\’s dissenting opinion essentially builds upon Stevens by making another dissenting point. While I think he had a point to make it was quickly lost in the complexities of his argument. Essentially he argued technicalities for about 50 pages in an effort to have it come together at the end with some sort of effect. FAIL.

Steven\’s dissenting opinion was just plain painful. Most of Steven\’s arguments require you to just accept his assumptions and definitions at face value, rather than providing any sort of legal support. Arguments concentrate mostly on the drafting history of the Second Amendment. Basing your argument on things there were left OUT of the final draft seems less than intelligent from my point of view.

Of course, I\’m not a lawyer (to my credit) and I\’m not overly experienced at reading legal opinions (to the credit of my social life) but I get the sense that Justice Stevens wasn\’t a real good lawyer. I get the sense that the other Justices don\’t think so either because in the majority decision, Justice Stevens is absolutely trounced throughout.

End result is that the Second Amendment appears quite safe for awhile for personal uses of firearms at home. However, it does leave the regulation door wide open and that is going to be a target of eternal vigilance for all Second Amendment activists. It also does nothing to address the civic aspects of firearms at all. So this isn\’t the landmark decision that many had hoped for, but then again I don\’t think anyone in even their most hopeful moment, thought it might be.