Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.
OK. so this is from Stevens' permanent contribution to the Court record, in the year's encore performance for the term. This is the Big Dissent of the 5-4 decision to actually UPHOLD the Constitution, for all future law graduates and historians, who will hang on every word--why did they do it, they will say?. You don't see Second Amendment cases like this very often. Today was a big deal.
And so all the buildup for the big moment... and then, this?? (link via Glenn Reynolds)
Well they are seeing them now. Heh.
Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."
Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.
I'd add that at 41 he refers to:
"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."
Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)
On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States." Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: "The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part..." So I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.
And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?
All this because of President Ford's Nixon-guilt-trip. What an embarassment.