Some comments

Clayton Cramer

From Scalia's brief:

the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster. . . .

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I was reading the decision, one comment in the Breyer dissent (pg 41) stopped me in my tracks:

"In the majority’s view, the Amendment also protects an interest in armed personal self-defense, at least to some degree. But the majority does not tell us precisely what that interest is."

Excuse me? You don't understand that the interest in armed personal self defense is to save your life!
Self defense = defense of yourself.
Not exactly a difficult concept for one of the nine finest judicial minds in the land to grasp.

6/26/2008 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like this point - that no one is picking up on yet - based on the fact that the ban is unconstitutional DC must rescind the ban and "must grant him a registration and a license". Wait. Did The Court just mandate shall-issue programs???? If fits with their fundamental rights approach...

6/27/2008 6:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home