Replies

In dissent, Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated.

I find this a little disturbing coming from a Supreme Court justice, frankly. The entire Constitution is nothing but a collection of choices to limit the tools available to elected officials. What on earth does "Congress shall make no law" mean in the First Amendment but a limitation on the tools available to elected officials? What is the entire Bill of Rights but a limitation on the tools available to elected officials?

In point of fact, it's bad law to refuse to overturn bad law because it might be inconvenient. Moreover, the government is not run for the convenience of its occupants, hard as that might be to grasp from the vantage point of Washington DC.