Now, Some folks seem to be worried about Scalia’s discussion of “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'” Is he talking about “M-16 rifles and the like”? Yes, he is.
Look, first off, he put this stuff in to secure a five-vote majority — he had to have it so he didn’t scare the white folks (i.e., Kennedy, whose agreement he turned out to desperately need in order to get a 5-4 majority).
But the more I read this opinion, the more I appreciate what Scalia’s done. The opinon’s loaded with little bits where Scalia seems to concede a point, then proceeds to undermine the concession itself.
Here, he COULD have started with “dangerous and unusual” and parsed it to mean “dangerous weapons” OR “unusual weapons.” But he didn’t. What’s better for us, “dangerous OR unusual” or “dangerous AND unusual”? The latter, for sure — this opinion can only be cited in support of prohibitions of weapons that are BOTH “dangerous” AND “unusual.”
Nicely done, Nino!
And FWIW, the Beretta 92 EL at top left is both dangerous and unusual, but not in the manner Scalia was talking about.
