‘Dangerous or Unusual’
Mike McIntire and Eli Murray, reporting for The New York Times (gift link) For nearly two decades, judges across the country have invoked this language to strike down gun-control laws. It is a pivotal legal test. It is also based on a misquote. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, attributed the “dangerous and unusual” language to Sir…
For nearly two decades, judges across the nation have employed the phrase "dangerous and unusual" to invalidate gun-control legislation. This legal test is crucial and stems from a misquoted statement. Justice Antonin Scalia, authoring the majority opinion in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, credited the "dangerous and unusual" phrase to Sir William Blackstone, an 18th-century English jurist whose writings formed the foundation of much of American jurisprudence.
However, in his 1769 treatise "Commentaries on the Laws of England," Blackstone actually used the wording "dangerous or unusual," indicating that a firearm did not need to possess both characteristics to be subject to restrictions.
This article revisits the fact that the Heller decision overturned centuries of Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, it highlights the current legal interpretation, often associated with the National Rifle Association (NRA), as a "greatest piece of fraud" perpetrated on the American public by special interest groups, according to a former Chief Justice Warren Burger.
Thus, much of the legal framework surrounding firearms law essentially rests on a misinterpretation of what Sir William Blackstone, a jurist from before the United States existed, had written.
Written by urgent.news from Daring Fireball's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
