The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Justice Stevens

**Aguila Blanca** · April 11, 2014, 04:15 PM

I share Glenn's view of Scalia's decision in Heller. I'm not sure I agree with Glenn on the motive -- in fact, I don't know if Glenn expressed a motive. I sort of think that Scalia wrote his majority decision the way he did because he needed to keep Kennedy on the side of pro-2A. That said, the verbiage declaring all existing anti-gun laws a "presumptively legal" and then stating that the RKBA is subject to "reasonable" regulation (it does NOT say that in the 2A) did not do us, the 2A, or the RKBA any favors.

Thus, as a consequence of Scalia not being able to interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall not be infringed," we are now stuck with "reasonable regulation" and years and years of court cases to determine what's "reasonable" and what's not.

April 11, 2014, 04:15 PM	#14
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,466	I share Glenn's view of Scalia's decision in Heller. I'm not sure I agree with Glenn on the motive -- in fact, I don't know if Glenn expressed a motive. I sort of think that Scalia wrote his majority decision the way he did because he needed to keep Kennedy on the side of pro-2A. That said, the verbiage declaring all existing anti-gun laws a "presumptively legal" and then stating that the RKBA is subject to "reasonable" regulation (it does NOT say that in the 2A) did not do us, the 2A, or the RKBA any favors. Thus, as a consequence of Scalia not being able to interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall not be infringed," we are now stuck with "reasonable regulation" and years and years of court cases to determine what's "reasonable" and what's not.