Skip to main content
Unpublished Paper
A Caustic Critique of District of Columbia v Heller: An Extreme Makeover of the Second Amendment
ExpressO (2009)
  • Robert L Potter

ABSTRACT OF ARTICLE In June, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States (5-4) held that the Second Amendment contained a right to possess and own firearms for personal purposes, removing any vestige of the famous introductory clause by James Madison, “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State ….” In this article the author takes serious issue with the methodology of the majority’s opinion by Mr. Justice Scalia, and demonstrates that: (1) Mr. Justice Scalia’s attempt to prove that “bear arms” does not have its idiomatic meaning, “to serve as a soldier, to do military service, fight,” was unnecessary, irrelevant, and absurd; (2) Mr. Justice Scalia’s “originalist” approach was meaningless and irrelevant; (3) Mr. Justice Scalia engaged in unprofessional bullying of opponents; and (4) Mr. Justice Scalia engaged in a drive-by shooting of United States v. Miller, a 1939 precedent which held that to demonstrate a Second Amendment violation, a litigant must show that there has been an adverse effect on the militia. The author, in addition , discusses the factors which should prevent the Court from holding that the residue of the Second Amendment should be applied to the States via the 14th Amendment. 200 Words

  • Second Amendment,
  • Incorporation under 14th Amendment,
  • Standard of Review of Gun Regulations
Publication Date
October 27, 2009
Citation Information
Robert L Potter. "A Caustic Critique of District of Columbia v Heller: An Extreme Makeover of the Second Amendment" ExpressO (2009)
Available at: