Huebert, I agree with almost all you say (except, why make this argument?–in an attempt to be honest, and to understand this wretched constitutional morass, and to expose it as inherently incoherent, morally bankrupt, and completely illegitimate; other than that, no reason). So I’ll just note one thing here: as noted in the decision, the “Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center.” Look at all the libertarians cheering the vindication of the right to bear arms … of a state agent. How heartening! Until this 5-4 decision, my heart ached at night thinking of the plight of poor state agents, defenseless in their homes…

The Best of Stephan Kinsella

I must respectfully decline to join in Mr. Kinsella’s “dissent” from the gun decision.

Even if one could make a credible argument that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the District of Columbia — I’m not convinced, but that’s not important — there’s no reason to want to make that argument. Taking Bill of Rights protections away from DC denizens wouldn’t increase anyone’s liberty, or even serve federalist purposes, because DC is a part of the federal government either way.

Bringing this lawsuit in DC was a smart, if risky, means of presenting this one simple issue to the court. It will almost certainly increase liberty and save countless lives, effective immediately. I don’t like it that we have a Supreme Court deciding such things for us, but we do, and as long as we do, let’s have more decisions like this one. (Unlikely.)

More worthy of dissent and ridicule: Scalia’s gratuitous comments at the end of his decision about how the police today provide us with “personal” security. Sure, if you’re a Supreme Court justice or the Vice President. The rest of us are out of luck — the Supreme Court itself has said we have no right to be protected by the police we’re forced to pay for.

The Best of Jacob Huebert