Thursday, June 26, 2008

DC vs Heller, A Quick Post

I am late in commenting on today's Supreme Court decision on Washington D.C. vs Heller. A long days work and all that. The court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller, outstanding. To tell the truth, recent decisions handed down by the court had me a bit worried about this case, and I was not expecting a 5/4 decision in favor of Heller. I thought it was either going to be 9/0 in favor of Heller, or 5/4 against.

The Supreme Court of the United States should have handed down an unanimous decision in favor of Heller. The facts were laid out before them and the arguments for the DC gun ban were debunked.

Jim Lindgren, of the Volokh Conspiracy, stated:


In dissent, Justice Stevens seems to have been unduly influenced by the brief from brief from historians and law professors putting forward a "civic rights" view. That brief was put together by Carl Bogus and joined by many historians who initially jumped to Michael Bellesiles's defense, including Jack Rakove, Saul Cornell, and Paul Finkelman.
David E. Young, author and historian, had taken this brief to task. He pointed out their errors and omissions in an article published on the George Mason University's History News Network. I discussed this article in the post "Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional". I contacted Mr. Young this morning, and this is some of what he had to say:


I was somewhat disappointed that this ended up a 5-4 split because the historical information directly contradicts the minority. Obviously, the minority have relied on the information provided to them in the pro-DC briefs. I urge those who want to understand why the gun control supporters' briefs are misleading to read my analysis of them, especially that of the professional historians that was published by the History News Network at http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html. With briefs like that to rely on, no wonder gun control advocates accept as true what the historical sources directly contradict.
I will join with David and urge you to read his analysis on the brief that the dissenters of the court relied upon for their dissent.

I'm off to play with grand kids, they have been very patient with me so far.

More on DC v Heller to come.

2 comments:

catfish said...

Good stuff!

JR said...

Thanks :)