A progressive's view of Heller

This is from an article by a California "progressive" (a/k/a "liberal") on the Supreme Court's Heller ruling:

What has occurred is that now that commentators have read the opinion and considered its implications, the vindication of this particular “privilege and immunity” of US Citizenship was really vindicated because of the actions of supporters of civil rights. It should also likely call for calls in various quarters for a robust increase in fee awards in 42 USC 1983 action via amendments to 42 USC 1988.

While it may come as a shock to some that the spear carrier for this was Justice Scalia this should not come as a shock to people who know him. While I have not met Justice Scalia in the flesh, I do know a lot about him – both from persons who know him and his public interviews – and he is often difficult to ideologically peg because of his view as the Framer’s intent which is referred to as “originalism”.
...
As such, if Heller was a “conservative decision” the financial support that allowed the suit to proceed and the intellectual underpinnings for the decision itself - that is there is a constitutional right the right of an individual to keep a conventional registered gun on his or her property - is based on the civil rights struggles of African Americans and other minorities to obtain the relief envisioned in the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as “privileges and immunities” of United States citizenship and financial muscle in the form of a 1976 federal law that Reaganites opposed.

I say because as one reads the opinion Justice Scalia engages in a very extensive historical review of the understanding of the 2nd Amendment from the early stages of the Common Law through the adoption of the 14th Amendment. That historical understanding was very important because in order for Mr. Heller to obtain the relief sought he brought it under 42 USC 1983. The District of Columbia is considered a State for these purposes (See 28 USC 1343) 42 USC 1983 is a Reconstruction Era statute and it provides:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Read the article here. The author in part argues, correctly I think, that the existence of civil rights statutes such as 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and the accompanying statute that provides for recovery of attorney's fees for successful suits under Sec. 1983, helped bring the Heller suit to fruition.