The Heller Decision: A Massive Disappointment For All
Simple Justice: I’ve just finished reading the 68 page Scalia majority opinion in the 5-4 split decision in D.C. v. Heller. For anyone, like me, who believes that our United States Supreme Court poorly serves its function of providing comprehensive and meaningful guidance to the People of the United States of America, you will not be disappointed. Heller is a massive disappointment.
To cut to the chase, the sum total of Heller is that states cannot have a blanket prohibition on the possession of a handgun within the home for purposes of self-defense by individuals who are not otherwise prohibited, such as felons and the insane. That’s all she wrote.
The first 54 pages of the majority opinion go through a painful explanation of how the Second Amendment provides an individual right to have weapons and carry them, provided they are weapons commonly used by regular people, as opposed to weapons used by the military. Nothing surprising, though Scalia spends a lot of time shooting at the dissent.
As part of his explanation (and this will be relevant in a bit), Scalia writes:
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
Slip Op. at 11 (used to distinguish J. Stevens argument that “bear arms” referred to use by militia).
Scalia, at section III of the opinion, then states “what’s allowed:”
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340,…