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 … Continue reading Re: The Great Gun Decision: Dissent

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 … Continue reading Re: The Great Gun Decision: Dissent