Kharn
Ultimate Member
I’m not a lawyer... as a layman trying to learn, it seems that Scalia was too gentle, or tried to be too cleaver, in his wording. As folks here seemed to explain, it was to keep support.
I think the worst phrasing in my non legal opinion was the part where he said something like “people should not be allowed to carry firearms in any manner whatsoever.”
My original thought was that this translates to walking down the street, waiving it around, pointing it at people, threatening them, shooting them, and in general, being stupid.
Now in several states, this seems to be translated to... you CAN NOT carry a gun. In any manor!!! Whatsoever.
Whoever writes the pro gun opinion, majority or dissent, needs to be direct, blunt, and not try to “cleaver” in their wording. I think that’s the issue with heller. The cleaver wording is twisted in something not intended.
Also the part about not invalidating long standing laws... seems to be aimed at the NFA. Much like slavery, long standing laws don’t make them good or lawful.
Lawyer speak.
They need to smack whichever respondent has the pleasure that an unloaded gun going to the range or to the deer stand is not in a pocket, ready in case of conflict with another person.