If you are referring to me as a neo-Confederalist (?) or a neoConfederate, think again. I'm an anarchist opponent of the state. Not a pro-southern rebel-flag waving yahoo. There is no bind: we hate all states — central or local — and all agents thereof: legislative, executive, judicial. There is no contradiction whatsoever in opposing SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment and also opposing the infringement of rights by state governments. This is obvious to a 7th grader.

The lack of a standard of review threw me, as well…that was the clear surprise. I suppose they didn't want to go down the Booker road again, and probably couldn't agree. That split might have been a very difficult one, given that it was 5-4 as is.

Lots of messy litigation ahead.

What do you think of the response to the Heller decision from the Lew Rockwell brigade?

Here is one from Stephan Kinsella. He seems a bit ambivalent about the decision, don't you think?

I brought up his argument here on the Shotgun. He responded to me personally, which is kind of nice.

It seems to me that the neo-Confederalist's are in a bind. They hate SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment, but they don't exactly want to say they'd be ok with a state government totally banning guns, either.

Quite a pickle they're in, especially on the anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas

Best,

Terrence