search
top

Commentary in the New York Times

Includes commentary from Glenn Reynolds, who notes:

Even after the Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, it remained possible that the right to arms wouldn’t be incorporated against state and local governments. But after McDonald, the Second Amendment joins other provisions of the Bill of Rights that are routinely enforced against both federal and state infringements.

It may wind up being protected fairly well — as, say, First Amendment speech rights generally are — or poorly, as Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure often are, but it is now a full-fledged part of the Bill of Rights, not a neglected stepchild that has been interpreted out of existence.

Read the whole thing. I’m still working my way through the opinion. Been reading off and on all day. My eyes are getting tired, so I may have to save the dissent until later.

One Response to “Commentary in the New York Times”

  1. Carl from Chicago says:

    Regarding Reynolds observation on the 1st and 4th amendment protections, I can paraphrase from some old work done by Halbrook:

    … the 1st and 2nd amendments are stated in absolute terms (“Congress shall make no law” and “Shall not be infringed”), while the 4th is stated in relative terms (“unreasonable searches and seizures”).

    There is no good reason why we should end up with less robust 2A protections than 1A protections, given these terms. It is something we will have to guard against, however.

top