DefensiveCarry Concealed Carry Forum - View Single Post

Kerbouchard · July 9th, 2008, 10:51 PM

I did not mean to say that Stevens argument was more correct than Scalias, only that Stevens had something going for him. He could interpret the 2A as to what it actually means. He was not writing the majority opinion, but rather the dissent. Because the majority opinion was so narrow(i.e. one vote), Scalia was indeed forced, to reign in his opinion. Stevens knew he was in the dissent so was able to say whatever he pleased. Stevens is right on about which arms are protected, and not protected. He is just wrong on who it applies to. Scalia is mostly right about who it applies to, but is dead wrong about which arms are protected. Because Scalia was writing the majority opinion, and needed to keep the majority, he was forced to use words like 'reasonable restrictions' or to refer to what types of people can own firearms, or what requirements had to be met.

They both offer compelling arguments. Breyer's dissent is almost without worthy of comment.

Scalia laid a nice framework for individual right(which every justice conceded), but Stevens offered a much better framework for challenging all restrictions, or declaring all restrictions valid.

I believe, in Stevens opinion, he was basically challenging the majority to go all or nothing. Either say no restrictions, or assign which restrictions are valid. I also think he wanted a comprehensive decision, which the majority would not undertake.

They are both correct in most of their arguments, but as well as Stevens dissent is articulated, his end conclusion is wrong.

It was much more difficult to argue Scalia's opinion than Stevens. Scalia had to 'interpret' the 2A to refer to all people, but not to all types of weapons(which is of course not the true intent of the 2A), while Stevens could concede what weapons are protected, but to attack who the 2A should apply to.

Scalia just ignored too many aspects of the case(specifically the 'shall not be infringed' portion of the 2A) to have written a credible opinion, so I stand by my original assessment.

Stevens did not have the limitations of Scalia and did, indeed, present a better argument.

July 9th, 2008, 10:51 PM	#25
Kerbouchard VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 2,532	I did not mean to say that Stevens argument was more correct than Scalias, only that Stevens had something going for him. He could interpret the 2A as to what it actually means. He was not writing the majority opinion, but rather the dissent. Because the majority opinion was so narrow(i.e. one vote), Scalia was indeed forced, to reign in his opinion. Stevens knew he was in the dissent so was able to say whatever he pleased. Stevens is right on about which arms are protected, and not protected. He is just wrong on who it applies to. Scalia is mostly right about who it applies to, but is dead wrong about which arms are protected. Because Scalia was writing the majority opinion, and needed to keep the majority, he was forced to use words like 'reasonable restrictions' or to refer to what types of people can own firearms, or what requirements had to be met. They both offer compelling arguments. Breyer's dissent is almost without worthy of comment. Scalia laid a nice framework for individual right(which every justice conceded), but Stevens offered a much better framework for challenging all restrictions, or declaring all restrictions valid. I believe, in Stevens opinion, he was basically challenging the majority to go all or nothing. Either say no restrictions, or assign which restrictions are valid. I also think he wanted a comprehensive decision, which the majority would not undertake. They are both correct in most of their arguments, but as well as Stevens dissent is articulated, his end conclusion is wrong. It was much more difficult to argue Scalia's opinion than Stevens. Scalia had to 'interpret' the 2A to refer to all people, but not to all types of weapons(which is of course not the true intent of the 2A), while Stevens could concede what weapons are protected, but to attack who the 2A should apply to. Scalia just ignored too many aspects of the case(specifically the 'shall not be infringed' portion of the 2A) to have written a credible opinion, so I stand by my original assessment. Stevens did not have the limitations of Scalia and did, indeed, present a better argument. __________________ Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever. http://miscmusings.townhall.com/ Who is John Galt?