The adrenaline rush will render you sleepless!

[Hondo44]

This is fascinating reading. It’s long, 214 pages, but a true history lesson of the 2nd and 14th amendments and much more. To save time, skip down to the “Opinion of Alito, J” (page 33 [39 at the bottom of your screen]) for this case relative to the precedents and case law reviewed at the beginning but making it more understandable as it relates to the current decision and easier to follow.

It’s refreshing to read pure logic with fact and sources. The “Opinions” are the “Real McCoy”: no spin, no politics, no ideology except that of sincerely and diligently attempting to interpret our rights and case law as originally intended with logic and reasoning. The dissenting justices’ faulty logic becomes very clear and its speciousness and subjectiveness are laid bare. “Justice Scalia Concurring” (bottom of screen page 59) in particular exposes Justice Stevens’ twisted logic of elitism versus “…the ignorant masses is not merely naïve, but absurd” and “…dispels any illusion that he [Stevens’s] has a meaningful form of judicial modesty in mind.” Stevens’s “…approach does nothing to stop a judge from arriving at any conclusion he sets out to reach.” That of course translates to rendering the 2nd helpless to judges who would enforce any state’s firearms restrictions they wanted, making his agenda quite apparent. Suffice to say, all the bloviating and juxtaposition we’ve become weary of is present in Stevens’s dissent! It’s an enlightening window into the minds of those that attempt to apply their opposing ideology to the constitution and rule of law; complete and utter contradiction in and of itself. Scalia, referring to Stevens’s attempt to give judges power over and above that which is provided them, states in part: “…reveals more clearly than any of the others [earlier dissenting arguments], the game that is afoot." (screen page 63)

Still heavy reading although the adrenaline rush will render you sleepless!

 

[Lew Archer]

I agree...well worth reading. I waded through Justice Alito's opinion, Justice Scalia's, even part of Justice Thomas' take. Still working on that one.

Justice Thomas gets to the same result (incorporation), but via the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, rather than the Substantive Due Process Clause. I found his case persuasive and can see why it was McDonald's primary argument...even if it was a long shot.

I don't think enough people are paying attention to the case. It's getting some coverage in the media, of course, but not its due.

Why do I say that? Because, the national gun debate aside, this is a rare legal event in modern American history: Most of the Amendments within the Bill of Rights have been litigated extensively. However, the 2nd Amendment was given scant attention since the ratification of the Constitution. So it's a relatively clean slate. Amazing, considering it's 2010.

Heller was a start, but its reach was limited to the Federal government. Now McDonald extends its reach nationwide. That's remarkable enough--but what will be a priceless lesson in civics, even for those uninterested in guns or gun rights, is how our courts and legislatures navigate unchartered Constitutional waters.

We don't often get to witness the beginning of such a Constitutional Odyssey. I think the significance of that is deserving of more attention.