I know readers are befuddled by my relative silence on this. It strikes me as an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment, as extreme as this court's interpretation of the Second Amendment.I'm not a top blogger like Andrew Sullivan, but I don't find particularly "extreme" the Court's deciding that an individual's right to self-defense in her own home within the District of Columbia to be a more compelling concern than was D.C.'s power to prohibit ownership of arguably the most effective instrument of self-defense.**
Continued relative silence may have been the more prudent course.
* Although I'm impressed by bloggers who can digest and pronounce upon 175 pages worth of Supreme Court opinions in an especially complex area of law within the space of about 17.5 minutes.
** The trouble with the majority's opinion in D.C. v. Heller is that Scalia was holding the Bill of Rights upside down when he wrote it:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, a well regulated Militia [among other things, such as personal self-defense] being necessary to the security of a free State [sic].