Dave Hardy Dismantles the Stevens Dissent in Heller

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Cardozo Law Review has published an outstanding article by Dave Hardy titled "Ducking the Bullet: District of Columbia v. Heller and the Stevens Dissent."

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/cont...DY_2010_61.pdf

In this article, hardy proceeds to completely dismantle the Stevens dissent in Heller, brick by brick (or more like stick by stick, since there is no stone in the Stevens dissent) until there is absolutely nothing left but rubble.

He does it completely dispassionately, without bias, and extreme politeness; but he utterly destroys the dissent in Heller. For anybody who is debating that decision, it is a tremendous resource to problems in the reasoning and sources used in the dissent. It is also an interesting insight into how much the outcome was predetermined whether there was good law to support it or not.

[Chipperman]

Link won't open for me.
Is it working for other people?

[Old Grump]

Here is the first paragraph, there are links for it all over the internet, one of them should work.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER ESTABLISHED THAT THE Second Amendment’s right to arms existed as an individual right, with no requirement that the rights-holder be functioning as part of a well-regulated militia. While the majority opinion has been subjected to extensive review and commentary, the Steven dissent, joined by four members of the Court, has not. The dissent came within one vote of becoming the majority; it clearly merits close examination.

Had the dissent become law, the Court would have informed the American people, seventy percent of whom believed they had an individual right to arms, that their rights-consciousness was sadly mistaken. If done on the basis of sound research and reasoning, this would involve no more than the Court performing its duty. An examination of the dissent suggests, however, that the Court would have been taking this position based upon surprisingly thin reasoning and evidence.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010...evens-dissent/

[Shane Tuttle]

Works for me, Chipperman. Might be on your end.

[LaserSpot]

I'm going to have to read the Stevens Dissent:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

before I read DUCKING THE BULLET:
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/cont...DY_2010_61.pdf

Edit: If you haven't read it, here is the Opinion of the Court, plus both dissenting opinions
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf