One of the most remarkable features of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion and Justice Stevens’s dissent (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter) is the view that the Second Amendment means only what it meant at the time of its proposal and ratification in 1789-91. — Sanford Levinson, Huffington Post, D.C. v. Heller: A Dismaying Performance by the Supreme Court
No, they tried to define what it meant at the time of its proposal and ratification – “original public understanding.” And Scalia was far more correct than Stevens, which Sandy Levinson didn’t bother to point out. I thought Stevens’ errors were the most remarkable feature of his dissent.