The Supreme Court obviously wanted to be very precise. That likely explains why it skipped announcing last week, they had to work on it, perhaps negotiations between Justices on the precise wording. I suspect the wording is the result of a lot of careful thinking.Read the whole thing!
The reference to "Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia..." is good. Implicit in that is that the old collective right theory (that Second Amendment rights are rights of states only) is off the table. We're down to sophisticated collective rights vs. individual rights. And I might even venture a guess that the Court is showing favor for individual rights here. The sentence presupposes that there are "Second Amendment rights of individuals." There's no "if any" language in there. Read literally, it presupposes that individuals not in such a militia do have second amendment rights... the only question is whether the laws violate those rights. But that may be reading too much into the wording... then again, it was probably the result of some careful thinking, and negotiation.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Excellent Analysis from David Hardy...
...at Arms & the Law: