|
Well, Roachboy, I read through Scalia's opinion quickly but here's how I understood his analysis of the language. The bill of rights got ratified in 1791. People voting on ratification, in the aggregate, discussed the proposals. The discussions presupposed an understanding of the proposals - that understanding was the "original public meaning." That original public meaning is what got ratified, so that's what we have to uncover.
In terms of the language, he distinguished between the preamble and the operative clause. As written, the 2nd says, "because X, your right Y is protected." His view is that protection of the right doesn't change merely because the then-justification might evolve to another form. (in this respect, think of the fact that a fair amount of labor legislation was originally passed for the purpose of keeping blacks out of more lucrative labor markets. Once that purpose went away, the legislation was not thereby invalid, it merely took on a new purpose. of course, the exclusionary purpose wasn't explicit, but I think the analogy nevertheless works). It's not even clear that the militia no longer exists - it depends on how you view it (we might all still be the unorganized militia, though the thought of me with a gun is frightening) - but that's a different issue. People still shake hands to greet each other even though they're not examining each other for weapons, right?
The dissent's position is that the 2nd Amendment is the only one that grants merely a governmentally sanctioned rights (as distinct from rights that are protected against governmental infringement). That's not a "right" as anyone really understands the term, is it?
As I said above, I don't really care about guns, it's not something I get excited about. I do care about being told what to do, though.
|