Preface: I know the majority decision has been discussed in the Heller thread, but I would like to keep this thread focused on the dissent, or at least focused on Con-Law, in order for it not to duplicate other threads.
I've been wanting to post this since the decision came out, but have not gotten a chance. While I do not mean to exclude any members of this forum because I know that everybody can provide insight, my questions are mostly for those who have read the full decision and/or have some background in Con-Law.
Reading through the decision, and the dissent, if you were not told which one affirmed Heller and which one dissented, it seems to me it would be difficult to figure out. As good a job as Scalia did in the majority, I find it hard pressed to beat Stevens' dissent.
Out of the two, Stevens' dissent was better articulated, better researched, and all together, better argued. And to tell you the truth, after reading the majority and minority opinions, I tend to agree with Stevens more than I do with Scalia.
If only Stevens and Scalia agreed with who the 'militia' encompassed, we would have a 9-0 decision scrapping ALL gun-control laws.
If you open the decision to a random page, it is difficult to realize who is arguing what. If you happen to open it to the dissent, it seems as if regulations on automatic rifles/assault weapons are unconstitutional, but if you happen to open it to the affirmation, it seems as if 'reasonable restrictions' are justified.
It was very interesting to me that Stevens seemed to make an argument towards no limitations are constitutional, based on a militia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment while Scalia seemed to make an argument that limitations are not only constitutional, but necessary.
My question, and what I would like to open up for discussion, is: Did the dissenters intend to argue that if we are going to take 'this line'(i.e. the majority opinion), that most, if not all, regulations should be lifted?
Justice Stevens repeatedly references military arms and arms that are useful to the military as being the 'arms' that the 2nd amendment protects, and yet Scalia, refers to arms as those being 'commonly used'. So, I ask, how would something be 'commonly used' if it was illegal or heavily restricted by unconstitutional laws to begin with?
I also ask, if we are looking to have our 2nd Amendment Rights fully restored, should we look at the affirmation, or rather at the dissent? Justice Stevens presented a very compelling argument that any firearms that are useful to the militia cannot be regulated, and he backs up his stance with Miller.
Was Stevens trying to go so far overboard that he did not think America would go for it, or was there not such a large difference in the opinions, as we might have originally thought?
I've been wanting to post this since the decision came out, but have not gotten a chance. While I do not mean to exclude any members of this forum because I know that everybody can provide insight, my questions are mostly for those who have read the full decision and/or have some background in Con-Law.
Reading through the decision, and the dissent, if you were not told which one affirmed Heller and which one dissented, it seems to me it would be difficult to figure out. As good a job as Scalia did in the majority, I find it hard pressed to beat Stevens' dissent.
Out of the two, Stevens' dissent was better articulated, better researched, and all together, better argued. And to tell you the truth, after reading the majority and minority opinions, I tend to agree with Stevens more than I do with Scalia.
If only Stevens and Scalia agreed with who the 'militia' encompassed, we would have a 9-0 decision scrapping ALL gun-control laws.
If you open the decision to a random page, it is difficult to realize who is arguing what. If you happen to open it to the dissent, it seems as if regulations on automatic rifles/assault weapons are unconstitutional, but if you happen to open it to the affirmation, it seems as if 'reasonable restrictions' are justified.
It was very interesting to me that Stevens seemed to make an argument towards no limitations are constitutional, based on a militia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment while Scalia seemed to make an argument that limitations are not only constitutional, but necessary.
My question, and what I would like to open up for discussion, is: Did the dissenters intend to argue that if we are going to take 'this line'(i.e. the majority opinion), that most, if not all, regulations should be lifted?
Justice Stevens repeatedly references military arms and arms that are useful to the military as being the 'arms' that the 2nd amendment protects, and yet Scalia, refers to arms as those being 'commonly used'. So, I ask, how would something be 'commonly used' if it was illegal or heavily restricted by unconstitutional laws to begin with?
I also ask, if we are looking to have our 2nd Amendment Rights fully restored, should we look at the affirmation, or rather at the dissent? Justice Stevens presented a very compelling argument that any firearms that are useful to the militia cannot be regulated, and he backs up his stance with Miller.
Was Stevens trying to go so far overboard that he did not think America would go for it, or was there not such a large difference in the opinions, as we might have originally thought?