Quick Thoughts on D.C. v. Heller--The 2nd Amendment Case

Here are my first impressions, in order that they came to me.

1. The acrimony in the majority and Justice Stevens' dissent is really over the top. The majority refers to dissent thinking as "wrongheaded" and "worthy of the mad hatter." Justice Stevens invokes the parable of the six blind men viewing the elephant to describe the word-for-word analysis of the majority. Nasty.

2. Justice Stevens uses the same historical references as the majority, yet draws different conclusions. It would be interesting to read the original sources, although the majority seems to have done a better job of explaining why Stevens is wrong than he does in disputing them.

3. Justice Breyer's dissent is substandard. That was my impression upon first reading. I then went back and searched the majority opinion for specific rebuttal of Justice Stevens' dissent, and likewise, Justice Breyer's dissent. The majority felt it necessary to answer Justice Stevens many times. Not so with Breyer. I guess they felt like me--it really wasn't necessary.

4. The idea that a city can ban handgun ownership was clearly struck down. In fact, the court ordered the district to grant a license to Mr. Heller. Now the District is not a state, but through the 14th Amendment, it would seem to me that this decision is going to loosen handgun bans everywhere. The court seemed to favor a "shall issue" standard. It is also noteworthy that the Court reviewed the historic literature and found the broadest right to keep and bear arms possible.