Jack Balkin and Sandy Levinson are right to probe with hypothetical the dimensions of the newly-minted, or perhaps ancient, right of self-defense, or right to own handguns, in one's home, or maybe outside it, or maybe also to own other weaponry, or maybe not, so firmly established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) per those ...

Hi, Orin, the Supreme Court's role is modest on some fronts, yes—I agree that deciding that child rapists can't be executed is not of the same order as upholding the death penalty in the first place. Or that outlawing one method of late-term abortion isn't up there with Roe. But in other areas, the court looks bigger to me, and the disagreements ...

Jack—You really should not be required to repeat yourself, and so I apoligize for making you go through it all again. But at last, I get it! It's not the justices who are acting strategically, only the presidents who appoints them. Once they appoint them, justices do as they do. Which is why Reagan appointed ...

At least one leading conservative believes the court fell down on the job in Heller if it views its job as making decisions in ways that create political debates sure to help Republicans, adding further support for my view that the claims by some that the court's approach to Roe (bend it, don't break it) thus far is best explained ...

C'mon, Orin, you don't give us enough credit with your non-Volokh post. There are plenty of truck-ownin', tobacco-usin', gun-shootin' folks here at Slate. Admittedly, we're a bit of a discrete and insular minority within the Slate family, but I don't think your Heller discussions are unwelcome here. I'm going through the opinion now, ...

In case some readers here may have tried to visit the Volokh Conspiracy today, we're, um, having problems due to incoming traffic. The site is not letting any of us bloggers log in to post, so although we have a ton of posts we want to write about Heller, we can't actually log in. I may post some stuff here instead, although posting on a ...

Adam, do you mean to tell me I still can't hunt in Rock Creek Park? And I can't go on homosexual romps there, either? What's the point of having a Constitution if it's not going to give me any rights? So, fine, if I run down a deer, I'm keeping my venison for myself. Scalia can't have any. Neither can you.

But if you really do want to go hunting, Rosa, I hope your first kill is the deer that ran out in front of my truck in the Northern Virginia suburbs on Sunday!

Now, Rosa, before we get all indignant or sarcastic (and I certainly hope you were being sarcastic), let's not allow ourselves to fall prey to exaggerated readings of today's gun decision. For example, let's not overlook Pages 54-55 of the court's opinion: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From ...

... in Rock Creek Park! At last! (See the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down the D.C. ban on handguns.) When I bag my first D.C. deer with my handgun, I will send a shoulder of venison to Justice Scalia in grateful admiration. If I manage to take out any muggers—or bystanders caught in the crossfire—I will ...