The Occasional Observer

SHK, you'll be happy to hear that my read on the decision as validating the machine gun ban is not the way that it's being read by in-the-know Constitutional Lawyers.

Apparently, what Scalia was doing in the decision is saying that:

1) since this case deals with handguns, I don't have to rule on the scope of what arms are included in your 2nd amendment right, beyond saying that handguns clearly ARE included.

2) as a result, this ruling does not reverse Miller and the ban on machine guns can stand.

3) Unwritten: since there is a grey area between the rights established in Heller and the precedent set by Miller, we (the Supreme Court) have set out a welcome sign for more lawsuits on the topic of the definition of "arms" as well as other ambiguities around 2nd amendment rights.

The NRA has already sued the city of Chicago to overturn their handgun ban. If they win, it will extend the rights laid out in Heller by making them enforceable on states and municipalities (using the theory of "incorporation").

After this hurdle is cleared, I guess they will probably file suit against the assault weapons bans in various states, which will open the door for the Court to consider what types of arms are defined under the 2nd amendment.

Alas, the problem with judicial conservatives is that, in their desire to restrain judicial power, they tend to rule narrowly around the facts of the case. Even then, they might limit themselves to protecting "assault weapons" as defined by the various states, and decline to issue a broad-form "rule" as to what weapons are protected.

What liberals enact with a stroke of the pen, conservatives must slowly chip away at over decades.

Depressing.