The evidence that might satisfy Stevens will not be found in the amendment itself, for as the opinions amply demonstrate, the 27 words can be made to bear either interpretation.
Not very reasonably. Nothing in the amendment says or even implies that the right is for militia use only.
Even more clearly its an individual right, as all the other rights in the bill of rights are, and as every other reference to "the people" in the constitution indicates.
He is less concerned with intention and purpose than with the problems faced by crime-ridden urban areas. His question, at least at first, is not How can we be true to the framers’ intention? but How can we read the amendment in a way that furthers our efforts to deal with a serious social problem?
In other words, how can he make up a meaning for the amendment, that forwards a specific political agenda.
And for that matter the agenda isn't even on that would help with the problems faced by crime-ridden urban areas, or deal seriously with any social problem. DC already had what effectively amounted to a handgun ban, and it had very high crime. Criminals still had the guns, only generally law abiding people seeking to defend themselves where disarmed.
Even if he was right about gun control possibly helping DC fight crime, its not the place of the supreme court to look for possible solutions to social problems and then impose them on the country. Their job is to look at the law, its the job of congress, and state legislatures, and city councils, and the executives at various levels, to look in to how to deal with social problems (to the extent that its a job for the government at all) |
