The quality of scholarship cited by Alito, much of it published in minor law reviews and much of it produced by gun rights activists with the express purpose of influencing the Court is nothing short of intellectually embarrassing. With over a thousand law reviews in existence, and many law reviews going on-line as well, the entire nature of legal scholarship now appears totally debased. Law review publication, most of it lacking any meaningful peer review or comparable quality control, has proliferated to the point where activists simply seed the law reviews with the express purpose of bolstering specious arguments. The notion that courts ought to wait for a true consensus to appear before turning to law reviews has been replaced by a notion that all publications are created equal. The notion of scholarly authority has almost no meaning any more.
Preach it, Prof. Cornell!
On the bright side:
As a practical matter, the case merely extends the Heller status quo to the states and seems unlikely to change the realities of gun regulation. While gun bans may be out, virtually any gun regulation that could survive the political process is likely to survive the wave of challenges that will follow in the wake of this decision. Interestingly, Justice Alito underscored the narrow scope of Heller’s original holding – which, he made clear, only protected guns in the home. Since most gun rights advocates are focused on the right to carry, his statement in McDonald is likely to be a serious disappointment.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.