“Reading Law” (Scalia & Garner, 2012)

[Peaceful John]

Page 18: “(Garner) also favors gun control and deplores the Second Amendment, but he believes that the majority opinion in Heller correctly interpreted that amendment as establishing a personal right to bear firearms.”

Isn't it hopeful that a book in which Justice Scalia probably had at least editing privileges chose that particular subject and expressed it in that particular way?

Cross posted to CalGuns.

 

[AliasNeo07]

Page 18: “(Garner) also favors gun control and deplores the Second Amendment, but he believes that the majority opinion in Heller correctly interpreted that amendment as establishing a personal right to bear firearms.”

Isn't it hopeful that a book in which Justice Scalia probably had at least editing privileges chose that particular subject and expressed it in that particular way?

Cross posted to CalGuns.

I was thinking about picking this book up. Who is Garner?

 

[AliasNeo07]

Also, did you read the book and find this or it just came up online somewhere? If you read the book, how do you like it? Recommend?

 

[Peaceful John]

David A. Garner does "Black's Law Dictionary" and wrote "The Elements of Legal Style". He's a recognized commentator on the technical side of legal writing.

I'm reading the book, and, yes, I'd warmly recommend it.

While it's probably interesting only to folks in Maryland, California, Illinois, New York and the other "non-free States", what do you think of Scalia's support for the comment, ". . . Heller correctly interpreted that amendment as establishing a personal right to bear firearms.”? (My emphasis). I was particularly struck by the fact that he/they addressed "bear" as though it was obvious in Heller. Your thoughts?

Cordially,
John

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

For a person whose business it is to parse words in a legal sense, I'm surprised that he would assert that the Second Amendment established the right rather than protected and codified a pre-existing right.

 

[Boom Boom]

Note the omission of the words "keep and". Intentional word games? Minus "keep and", 2A is neutered beyond recognition.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Note the omission of the words "keep and". Intentional word games? Minus "keep and", 2A is neutered beyond recognition.

I don't know, bear implies keep: One can't bear what they can't have. But keep without bear would definitely be neutered.

 

[Boom Boom]

I don't know, bear implies keep

"Implies" is a giant hurdle to overcome in a court of law. The interpretation would be left to the whim of court systems and political motivations instead of being clearly defined as an individual right.

One can't bear what they can't have. But keep without bear would definitely be neutered.

"Keep" means own. "Bear" means carry. Two radically different concepts if only "bear" were included in 2A. Without "keep and", the state has ultimate power and authority to issue guns for any citizen to bear, whenever the state feels so inclined, which in reality would translate to almost never.

 

[Mooseman]

This is a very Clintonesque thread. It depends on what the meaning of is is.

 

[Peaceful John]

Note the omission of the words "keep and". Intentional word games? Minus "keep and", 2A is neutered beyond recognition.

Didn't Heller previously settle "keep"? I read the quoted reference as a shot across the bows, as it were, of the anti-bear courts. Am I wrong?

 

[krucam]

A free event regarding this book is on Tuesday, October 2nd in DC at the American Enterprise Institute, sponsored by The Federalist Society.

Justice Scalia WILL be there.

http://www.fed-soc.org/events/detai...right-and-wrong-ways-to-interpret-legal-texts

As we celebrate the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution, and as the Supreme Court prepares to open a new term, Justice Antonin Scalia and noted legal lexicographer Bryan Garner have released a new book, "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts."

In this comprehensive volume, the authors address key questions surrounding the relationship between written laws and their drafters and interpreters, including: Do fundamental principles exist for interpreting legal texts? From where are those principles derived? Do they exist independent of the will of the interpreter, and are they binding on judges?

Join Justice Scalia for a discussion of these important issues at this book forum cosponsored by the Federalist Society and AEI. A wine and cheese reception will follow.

I'd attend this in a heartbeat if I were a little closer.

 

[krucam]

Another opportunity to listen to Justice Scalia and meet afterwards with a book signing....this time at the Georgetown Law Center on next Tuesday, Nov 20th.

Space is limited, register at:
http://www.fed-soc.org/events/detail/a-reception-book-signing-with-justice-antonin-scalia-2

 

[yellowfin]

I attended the Fed Soc event in Philly and will say that if at all possible, you should make it a point to go. Listening to him speak is a rare treat and a distinct educational opportunity. I picked up two copies and got them signed there.

 

[wjackcooper]

Posner's opinion in a case not involving the Second Amendment

Judge Posner wrote:

At p.14 para. 2

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NB1FFULK.pdf

"The current edition of Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.
2009) attempts an updating: it defines proximate cause
as ... . The first definition begs the question
("legally sufficient to result in liability") and the second
founders on the uncertain meaning of "directly."

Bryan A. Garner is, as pointed out in posts above, is author/editor of Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Garner and Justice Scalia, also as pointed out in posts above, are co-authors of the book Reading Law. Garner supports Scalia's opinion in Heller.

Posner may be taking any opportunity, no matter how remote, to undermine Heller. His adroit critique of the proximate cause definition in Black's calls into to question Garner's work as an authoritative resource. Could be Posner considers himself boxed in by Mr. Gura and has used this case, in pertinent part, as still another vehicle to challenge the scholarship and professional reputation of his adversaries --- or could be this post shows my limit is two cups of caffeinated coffee.

Regards
Jack

 

[yellowfin]

It really does strike me as disturbing how someone as intellectually capable as Garner chooses be anti gun. He clearly knows better.

 

[hvymax]

It really does strike me as disturbing how someone as intellectually capable as Garner chooses be anti gun. He clearly knows better.

The true Domestic Enemies know exactly what they are doing.

 

[Bob A]

I attended the Fed Soc event at Georgetown Law tonight. Pretty full house, books sold out before all wants were satisfied. Justice Scalia was in interesting and even entertaining speaker, and the FedSoc moderator did a fine job. Questions were taken from the audience (written on index cards) and discussed with wit and insight.

I was most surprised to hear the Justice's take on oral argument. He indicated that, far from a dog-and-pony show, they were (sometimes) extremely useful in determining which way a fence-sitting judge might decide. His contention was that, in submitting a brief, the most telling point was not necessarily the first; the heart of the case might well be buried in the mass of verbiage. A brief which the sitting court might not have thoroughly examined for several days could be brought to the immediate point by the presenting attorney. Scalia also noted that while some lawyers were excellent at writing briefs, the ability to excel at oral argument was a different skill, which might or might not reside in the bosom of a briefmeister.

Should the opportunity to attend one of these again present itself, I strongly urge anyone at all interested in the doings of the Supremes to go. I certainly will, myself.

For those of baser instincts, I should mention that drinks and hors d'ouvres were on hand, as well as a number of attractive lawyers of interesting gender.