No. of Recommendations: 1
Actually, the discussion of Waldman's argument goes on for several pages in the majority opinion - the above quote starts on page 11, but the argument continues through page 18. In the above excerpt, Scalia argued that "bear arms" couldn't be a term of art that was equivalent to "carrying weapons while serving in a military unit" - because otherwise you wouldn't have a bunch of state constitutional provisions that protected citizens' right to "bear arms" in defense of themselves. He continues on to point out numerous other examples of "keep and bear arms" being used as a phrase in other contexts where it would be nonsensical to read it as a term of art only referring to the wielding of a weapon in military service. A huge chunk of the majority opinion is engaging with and rejecting the Waldman interpretation (which forms the basis of much of Stevens' dissent).
Well, just because "the people's right to keep and bear arms" isn't being used in an artful way to refer only to "the right to form a militia" elsewhere doesn't mean that it didn't mean solely that in the 2A! I wonder how Waldman would reply to the arguments in the Heller decision.
