I may have spoken prematurely. That, or there's a book in the offing titled "The ABSOLUTE Idiot's Guide to what NOT to do as a dissenting SCOTUS Justice."
Justice Steven's struggle to define what right is protected by the Second Amendment is discussed at the following link.
Read the whole thread.
chiefbreakevryting:The dissents are rambling and confused because the activist Justices attempt to apply originalist arguments. That is, they have to make stuff up.
...the right that Stevens does allow is for an individual to bring an action complaining that he was prevented from bearing arms as a member of a well-regulated militia.
...The Stevens right is a right without an application. It's not even a right in search of an application. It's an individual right to own a gun in the home, but only if the gun mysteriously appears in the home without connection to reality outside the home and that mysterious materialization of the gun.
...It is a mess, relying on odd definitions ("bear arms" was only used in military purposes, except when in the few cases where it didn't and are thus outliers, thus making "keep and bear arms" military-only?), denies any right to self-defense, and flat-out swats asides examples like Jefferson's failed and proposed amendments while using Madison's failed and proposed amendment.