Breyer's Dissenting Opinion in the Heller Case

Here is one of the things Breyer said in his dissent. It was joined by justices Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter:

I can understand how reasonable individuals can disagree about the merits of strict gun control as a crime-control measure, even in a totally urbanized area. But I cannot understand how one can take from the elected branches of government the right to decide whether to insist upon a handgun-free urban populace in a city now facing a serious crime problem and which, in the future, could well face environmental or other emergencies that threaten the breakdown of law and order.

This raises two important points. How can a government insist on a handgun-free urban populace? It isn't possible. They can only guarantee that the law-abiding people will be handgun-free. Does Breyer really believe that some man who is willing to commit armed robbery or murder will obey a handgun ban?

We have already seen an example of what government might do in the case of an emergency that threatens the breakdown of law and order when New Orleans was inundated by hurricane Katrina. The guns of many law-abiding people were seized by the administration of the racist mayor Ray Nagin. This rendered them defenseless against viokent crime.