Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Have you read it? I would agree that I would not expect it to -- the Court's role is to determine what the Constitution means, not broader societal or policy issues.
Like you, I haven't read the whole thing yet, but as I understand it, the opinion, following earlier opinions, also limits the right to own guns to weapons such as were "in common use at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted, which the court describes these as weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens." This allows the continued limitation on ownership of more military-style weapons.
|
I've just glanced over the first part of the opinion (it's Scalia, and it's 64 pages, so I'll save the in-depth reading for tonight), but your understanding seems correct.
I'm really interested in Stevens' dissent as well; from what I've picked up in media reports and message boards, it seems like the dissent was in effect arguing for an extremely limited (close to non-existent) right to "bear arms." I kind of expected the majority to go as it did, but I really wouldn't have expected the dissent to go that way.
Threaded Mode
