35 years of gun sales, showing gun control's unintended consequences

[Surf Fishing Guru]

34. You couldn't have read the dissents . . .

jimmy the one said:
I've read the heller dissents, but have not seen any of the 4 justices 'recognizing and securing an individual right'.
I am calling you a liar until you post proof of what you contend above.

You could have just read them for real and saved yourself the embarrassment of me proving myself correct.

Breyer said, with Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg joining (emphasis added):

"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:​
​

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."​

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

​
Here we see Breyer and the other 3 dissenting Justices agreeing that ALL THREE Heller opinions issued that June day in 2008, all concur with the individual right interpretation.

The four dissenting Justices all agree that the individual right interpretation is the only interpretation represented in the Court's precedent.

The four dissenting Justices all agree that THE ENTIRE COURT AGREES WITH THOSE STATEMENTS.


Stevens also wrote for the individual right . . .

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."​

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Stevens then went on a grand snipe hunt ignoring precedent, putting the text of the 2ndA into a meatgrinder to invent a restrictive scope and a plausible argument to sustain DC's laws.

He failed.