Short post here, but reading between the lines, I’m getting the feeling that the pro-Rights people win, but with an interpretation that’s halfway between what the Bill of Rights really means and what Justice Scalia wants it to say.
Anyway, make sure you check out Laurel’s lol-speakage interpretation.
I haven’t been following this case as closely as perhaps I should, but since I just heard the first little peep on the subject from the legacy media this AM, I thought I’d comment.
Heller asked and answered the question of whether or not the Second Amendment to the Constitution was an individual right, and to a lesser extent whether the Bill of Rights actually applies to the special magic place that is the District of Columbia.
The big question in McDonald is where or not the Bill of Rights applies to the states.
Yup, it’s come down to that. Went all the way to the supremes, too.
