Strange Bedfellows

Dave Hardy notes that when you take the Heller decision and McDonald decision as a whole, focusing on the dissents, they thoroughly embrace Jefferson Davis’ view of the right.

3 Responses to “Strange Bedfellows”

  1. mobo says:

    It is pretty clear to me that the second amendment, as originally understood, was never intended to serve as a barrier to state legislation. In that sense, the dissenting justices are correct. It’s only with the added complication of the fourteenth amendment that the states can be limited in their ability to enact gun control measures.

    Jefferson Davis had The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government published at a time when the fourteenth amendment was understood by many as covering the exact same ground as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the only difference being that the fourteenth amendment couldn’t be overturned by a hostile Supreme Court. It makes perfect sense that he would see the 14th amendment as being much more narrow in scope than we see it today. Hell, even John Bingham, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens didn’t view it as broadly we do today.

  2. Matthew Carberry says:

    Do we get to drink?

    Bingham was mentioned… ;)

  3. Ian Argent says:

    Sure, why not.