[zukiphile]

Another month having passed, we might as well have the conversation again.

Originally Posted by Thallub

i ain't a lawyer nor do i play one on TV. However, i am somewhat adept at reading rather plain English.

i will say again: Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights.

I am an attorney. That assessment of the importance of Heller is not more accurate with repetition. Prior to Heller, the existence of an individual right was at issue, not merely its scope. If a judiciary is so opposed to a Sup Ct decision affirming the right, what decisions do you think that same judiciary would be writing if Heller had decided that there is no individual right? How much would you need to worry about the appointment of another RBG if the issue had been lost?

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

The details are discussed in the article and it points out how decisions are politically motivated for some judges and the Heller language again (whether you think so or not) contained prose that can be used as rationales for gun control (whether you think the decision was brilliant or not).

Emphasis added.

That isn't what the article indicates.

The reasoning in Kronstadt's order contains a severity of burden test not found in Heller and was a decision about open carry, a matter not addressed by Heller, but set forth in Jackson and Sylvester. Staton uses a plain rational basis test which is found nowhere in Heller, but is presented in the plaintiff's argument.

Rather than indicating that these cases use rationales found in Heller, the article indicates:

Originally Posted by Declan McCullagh

California judges, especially in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, have creatively interpreted the Heller decision into a constitutional near-nullity.

***

This judicial rebellion is not limited to California and the 9th Circuit. It's present in other circuits, including the 2nd Circuit and the 4th Circuit, which has coughed up conclusions like "assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment," despite both being in common use.

The rebellion of a judiciary intent on reversing can be addressed by replacing its members with judges and justices who would give due deference to the original public meaning of constitutional text. In our system, that is addressed politically.

Aguila Blanca aptly indicates the reasons for the current weak hand held by that view in the Sup Ct.