Hardcore gunners are a bunch of sick fucks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. Perhaps this from the dissent will explain my take.

The majority appears to suggest that even if the meaning of the Second Amendment has been considered settled by courts and legislatures for over two centuries, that settled meaning is overcome by the “reliance of millions of Americans” “upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.” Ante, at 52, n. 24. Presumably by this the Court means that many Americans own guns for self-defense, recreation, and other lawful purposes, and object to government interference with their gun ownership. I do not dispute the correctness of this observation.

As I read this what I see is that Stevens acknowledges an individual RKBA but disagrees that the amendment is a general protection for it. How very states' rights of him.

I look at the Founders intent of a federal union among the states. The people had faith and loyalty for their respective states. They endured 15 plus years working and fighting to remain free of the type of government above their state governments which they found so oppressive. Their interest was to not create another institution that would grow to be as oppressive as the British government had become. The 18th century American people had state and local governments to mediate the disputes and crimes among the individual residents. An area of law that, with the exception of interstate commerce, the federal government had no nexus. Today, crimes among individuals are generally not pursued by the FBI or other federal law enforcement.

If you briefly word search the entire dissent of Justice Stevens, you will find no references to the petitioner, Heller. Nor is Heller referenced indirectly therein by the term petitioner. Stevens does not counter the court's decision that Heller did have a right to have his gun in his home in use as personal defense. As I read the dissent, its substance is an objection to finding an existing federal protection of an individual RKBA, a disparagement of the majority opinion in that majority's slight mention of reasonable laws and restrictions on the right but an acceptance by the minority, as Stevens was joined by the other minority justice's, of the right's existence. Arguing for a more comprehensive judicial explanation of reasonable restrictions of a right cannot logically comport with denying the right's existence.

Have a nice weekend.