[infowarrior]

Yes, Scalia tried to tread the needle and failed. He recognized the full meaning of “the right to keep and bear arms” yet failed to recognize that the right exists any further than your front door. He could have ruled that your rights exist regardless of your location in public with a few exceptions, but didn’t. It is a start, but there are many battles yet to fight.

Its not that Justice Scalia "failed to recognize" the right outside the home, but that the right outside the home wasn't even the issue in front of the Court at this time. For him to go beyond what was at issue in this particular case would have been the same kind of judicial activism which we decry from the other side.

In the decision of the Court the issues which were squarely in front of the Court, as part of the case at hand, it was a solid, convincing win. On other issues which were not part of Heller at all, Jutice Scalia's language is quite encouraging as to future rulings on those issues which Heller did not, and rightly, could not broach at this time...

the infowarrior

[Blood of Tyrants]

I disagree. He went to great lengths to accurately define the 2nd Amendment but when he got to the “shall not be infringed” part, he failed utterly by basically declaring that everything but an outright ban does not constitute infringement.