Rick HasenVerified account

"its intent was to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms.” Robert Bork, 1989. Bork!!!

Scalia's description of himself as a "faint-hearted originalist" is never more obvious than Heller, where he rejects the explicitly-stated original intent and statement of purpose in the very text of 2A.

Scalia was a partisan hack who was also a good writerhttps://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/978628161502986240?s=19 …

Let’s look past #2A and consider #9A for a moment: (1) Is there an unenumerated natural right of self-defense? If yes, (2) If yes, then in a world where firearms have existed since 12th Century, is owning a firearm (although not *any* firearm) reasonable for self-defense?

Originalism is chosen for the outcome and ditched when inconvenient. Particularly Scalia, but most others as well.

Scalia was a fraud.

whatever gets him to the hunting lodge

The only thing that can defeat half the text in an amendment as written is textualism; the only thing that can defeat textualist originalism is history and tradition...unless it’s the history and tradition in Stevens’ dissent...and next time: incorporation for federalists!