The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 14, 2010, 10:24 AM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,767
Dave Hardy Dismantles the Stevens Dissent in Heller

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

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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 14, 2010, 01:07 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: January 31, 2000
Location: Live Free or Die, Baby!
Posts: 1,429
Link won't open for me.
Is it working for other people?
Chipperman is offline  
Old January 14, 2010, 01:20 PM   #3
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
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.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old January 14, 2010, 08:02 PM   #4
Shane Tuttle
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 8,825
Works for me, Chipperman. Might be on your end.
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU:
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old January 14, 2010, 11:08 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: August 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 311
I'm going to have to read the Stevens Dissent:


Edit: If you haven't read it, here is the Opinion of the Court, plus both dissenting opinions

Last edited by LaserSpot; January 14, 2010 at 11:15 PM.
LaserSpot is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05403 seconds with 7 queries