D.C. v. Heller (2nd Amendment)

Here is the opinion:

DC v Heller - Free Legal Forms

I have only skimmed the opinion (it's long).

I don't believe that the Second Amendment was originally meant to protect the right to bear arms for any purpose other than a "well-regulated militia." Scalia, surprisingly for someone who exalts the text so often, too casually dismisses the importance of the statement of purpose in the Second Amendment.

However, I am not an originalist. Therefore, I have no problem with interpreting the Constitution to grant rights not contemplated by the framers. When in doubt, I favor interpretations that expand rights rather than limit them.

Additionally, even if there were no right to bear arms, total bans on firearms would be a public policy disaster. It would have the same success as Prohibition and the War on Drugs. While law abiding citizens would disarm to some extent, criminals would continue to have guns.

So, while I disagree with parts of the opinion's legal analysis, I have no problem with the result. The same may be said for my thoughts on Roe v. Wade.