Our lazy opposition
We’ve discussed issues with the dissent. And basically, they’re lazy. They are old, after all. For instance, some factual inaccuracies in the Heller dissents and, basically, saying we can’t change now that’s too hard.
Well, more evidence of their general laziness: Simply because it will be disruptive to existing (unconstitional) laws Breyer thinks that is a valid reason to allow the D.C. ban to stand.
That’s two Justices on the supreme court who basically said Why change what we’re doing, even if it is wrong? I though only conservatives did that?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
There are some factual inaccuracies in the majority opinion also, some very serious and dangerous ones. The most egregious of which is the statement that the core of the reason for the second amendment is self defense in the home.
That hands the gunbanners a huge club with which to beat back the exercise of the right under 2A, when added to the other caveats and exemptions of the full exercise of the right contained in the opinion.
Yeah, I know, I’m a doomsayer and never satisfied. Don’t bother to say it. Just hide and watch where they hang their hats when the new round of restrictions start down the pike.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Laws come with “challenge by” dates? Who knew…