[Hoot Gibson]

You hold more with Scalia in HELLER, while I hold more with Stevens. Freedom of speech has a limit ("fire" in a crowded theatre), so the whole "absolute right, no exceptions" thing, for me, doesn't fly. The scope of a right, as Justice Stevens pointed out in HELLER dissent, is a relevant consideration. "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech, as it endangers the public good. Military-style weapons of mass killing potential as the right of every citizen, in my view, broadens the scope of the 2nd Amendment too far.

Prior to the Heller decision, Washington, DC had effectively made legal gun ownership impossible for most of its citizens. The analogy to the "Fire" exception to the First Amendment is ridiculous, IMO. If the government is free to regulate constitutional rights out of reach by imposing excessive barriers and costs to the exercise of those rights, then citizens are deprived of those rights as surely as if they were erased from the Constitution.

The fact is, areas of the country where liberals have been most successful in imposing gun control laws, such as Chicago, generally have higher gun crime rates than areas where Second Amendment rights are respected and widely exercised.