"The Right of the People" - John Paul Stevens' dissent in the D.C. handgun ban decision

scotusblog.com (PDF File) ^ | June 26, 2008 | John Paul Stevens

[okie01]

Conversely, if someone else attacks such a problem and immediately starts implementing fixes that never quite work, and is still going at it two months later, the inability to solve the problem is a result of unforeseeable difficulties. The notion that such difficulties could in fact have been foreseen completely escapes them.

My sis, the social worker. Completely oblivious to common sense when it comes to the conduct of her job.

[okie01]

one aspect which conservatives don't fully appreciate is a fatalistic detachment of cause and effect.

Along with a similar disassociation of intentions -- which are essential -- and results, which are essentially irrelevant...

[okie01]

one aspect which conservatives don't fully appreciate is a fatalistic detachment of cause and effect.

Along with a similar disassociation of intentions -- which are essential -- and results, which are essentially irrelevant...

[Captain Rhino]

Correct.

As long as the purpose is lawful (e.g., the group is not planning or engaged in criminal activities), the government has no authority to dictate who may or may not come together for whatever purpose. As with the other rights ennumerated in the amendments to the Constitution, this right is subject to reasonable limitations. However, as the ruling pointed out, “reasonable limitations” cannot be so restrictive as to extinguish the right for all practical purposes. For example, while you may have a right to come together socially, that right is subject to time, place, and type of activity restrictions. Example: a scheduled rock concert in a stadium away from residential areas is okay, an unscheduled rock concert in a residential area at 2:00 AM is disturbing the peace.

In addition, by definition, a group can consist of only one item. In fact, in set theory, a group can be defined in such a way as to consist of no items and still be a valid set.

Justice Stevens’ dissent was a desperate rear guard action to shore up the failing legal theory that the right to possess weapons for self defense was somehow tied to being part of a militia (and therefore could be greatly restricted or prohibitted outright on an individual basis).