In skimming through the Wilson v. County of Cook decision, written by the "temporary" Justice Mary Jane Theis, I detected a certain captious attitude toward the HELLER and MCDONALD decisions of SCOTUS. Leaving aside any 2 A. interpretive dispute the good Temporary Justice (to confer a title) has with SCOTUS, there were some rather cutesy remarks directed at these decisions.
For example, in her opinion, the TJ (to confer an abbreviation of a title) quoted from HELLER:
. . .longstanding [sic] prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons. . . .
Ah yes, [sic] with the meaning I know it is incorrect, but 'sic erat' in the original. Do not blame me for the error.
A little below this quotation, we are instructed on the correct form, by an example:
The Court declined to explain what it meant by 'long-standing'. . .
(One can almost hear, SEE, this is how it should be --- with a hyphen.)
This illustration of linguistic rectitude is presented while we are simultaneously given a criticism of the Heller Opinion, in the opinion of the TJ, who writes the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court
I learned long ago that English is a language of traditions rather than rules. One of these longstanding traditions, as opposed to recently established elements of English such as the neologism "assault weapon" or the recently coined title Ms. ( I hope I have explained what I mean by longstanding to the satisfaction of the good TJ), is the transition over time, from two words to one, as explained here:
A common pattern is that two words fire fly, say will be joined by a hyphen for a time fire-fly and then be joined into one word firefly.
The TJ has apparently judged, or has been advised by some authoritative source for good usage and style, that long and standing have not had long enough of an engagement to be married into longstanding. She has, however, deemed them to have dated long enough to be engaged by a hyphen, and not separated by that duenna of a space.
I find it more a matter of personal choice, which causes no loss of meaning, whichever form of longstanding one may prefer. Both hyphenated and unhyphenated forms may be found in various dictionaries. Anyone who assumes to be an authoritative arbitrator in the matter of hyphen/no hyphen in this case foolishly assumes more authority than could ever be granted to anyone in such matters.
If this opinion, with all its inclination to criticize HELLER and MCDONALD even on so small a matter as a hyphen, is any reflection of the Illinois Supreme Court's leanings on RKBA, then it is certain to be an anti-gunrights * decision that will eventually come from this Court.
Maybe anti-gun-rights, anti-gun rights, antigun/anti-gun ? Of course, guns don't have rights, the people do, and laws are not really passed against guns but against the people who wish to lawfully keep and bear them, so I will settle for anti-2 A. decision.
Edited by LongPurple, 13 April 2012 - 07:22 AM.