Heller and the workplace
Employment law expert (and one of my favorite employment law writers) John Phillips offers a thoughtful analysis of the Heller decision:
"However, the majority opinion made it clear that a government regulation denying a “law-abiding, responsible citizen” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” The DC handgun regulation had obviously gone too far, but somewhere out there is presumably a measure that doesn’t go too far."
Is that too much to ask?
"However, the majority opinion made it clear that a government regulation denying a “law-abiding, responsible citizen” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” The DC handgun regulation had obviously gone too far, but somewhere out there is presumably a measure that doesn’t go too far."
Is that too much to ask?
John Phillips says he’s “certainly not a constitutional scholar,” and goes on to prove it beyond doubt. He’s no grammarian, either, if his piece on the Heller decision is any indication.
He claims that the Heller court “strained mightily and used the machinations of the most expert magician to reach its result.” Nonsense. As you have said, Justice Scalia, author of the majority opinion, is an originalist and believes that constitutions and statutes should be interpreted according to the meaning of their words at the time of enactment. That’s exactly what the majority did in Heller.
For an apolitical interview of an expert in American usage about the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, see http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html.
For a sentence diagram of the Second Amendment, with explanation, see http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/diagramamend2.htm.
Incidentally, the Second Amendment has no bearing on private landowners’ right to forbid bringing weapons onto their land; or employers’ right to forbid employees to go armed on the job; or parties’ right to include weapons restrictions in their contracts with each other. The Second Amendment — like the rest of the Bill of Rights — restricts governmental power, not citizens’ rights.
Reply to this