In March, 2007 the Washington Post carried a story about Robert Levy, the person behind perhaps the most important Supreme Court case since Brown vs. Board of Education. Levy doesn't own a gun. His basis for filing the suit was the restoration and defense of personal liberties :
To Levy the libertarian, though, the effectiveness of the law -- its success or failure in curbing crime -- isn't the core issue. What matters most to him is whether the statute unjustly infringes on personal liberties. He doesn't dispute that "reasonable" gun controls are permissible under the Second Amendment. But the District's law amounts to "an outright prohibition," Levy said, and "that offends my constitutional sensibilities."
Read the full article here.
In June, 2008 prior to the Court's decision, Levy downplayed in the Washington Times the effect of Heller:
Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals? Does that right extend to private use of arms? Or does the Second Amendment simply authorize the states to arm the members of their militias? The court will have to answer those threshold questions before deciding whether the D.C. gun ban is constitutional. Given the bizarre history of the Miller case, its dubious analysis and inconclusive result, about the only guidance Miller offers is how not to go about setting a Supreme Court precedent.
The opinion, of course, is much broader than those specific questions. Read the full Washington Times column here.
Photograph from cato.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment