Exactly right. And this was the Court's reasoning in recognizing the 2nd Amendment as embodying an "individual" right to keep and bear arms.
But that flies in the face of all previous decisions regarding the Second Amendment.
Irrelevant.
You don't have an individual right to a gun. You have a collective right. That means you don't have a right to a gun for your, individual needs. Instead, you have a right to a gun for the collective needs of the State.
According to the Second Amendment.
The Court disagrees. They interpret the Founders’ reasoning as being there can be no militia without the individual right. The two are inseparable.
And Scalia's claim that "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach" seems to forget all about the First Amendment. It's called the "Lemon test."
“Interest-balancing” in the vernacular of the Court is politically-based and not the same as recognizing legitimate State interest in regulation of rights. It is a fine line and I understand the confusion.
BTW, Lemon did not seek to limit the peoples’ right to religious practice but limit the government’s rights to limit its exercise contrary to the First Amendment. This was a bold restriction against government’s attempts to overstep the establishment clause. Neither “interest-balancing” nor compelling State interest was established in Lemon.
Better cites would have been US v Williams (Kiddy Porn v First Amendment) or Baltimore v Bouknight (Child protection v Fifth Amendment). These do place limits on Constitutional rights by compelling State interest.
But then again, Scalia isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
If you have ever met the man, as I have, you would know otherwise. He certainly is sharper in Constitutional Law than anyone on this forum.
When you have to point out that your ruling which completely contradicts all previous rulings isn't supposed to be interpreted to mean that it contradicts all previous rulings, then you know you've screwed up somewhere.
Wrong interpretation based on a layman’s incomplete knowledge of the workings of the law. The Court is recognizing that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the right, but only to the degree that it does not usurp the right in total. And that right is now an individual one. The DC ordinance overstepped this line.
See Williams and Brouknight above.
All previous rulings have said that it is a collective right.
Irrelevant.
™ Version 4.2
