[Abogado]

Ninth Circuit hmmm... Perhaps the majority should have applied their own rules regarding plain language interpretations:
“[i]n the statute at issue, Congress left no gap, no silence, no ambiguity, so ‘we must give effect to the plain language that Congress chose.’" Orca Bay Seafoods v. Northwest Truck Sales, 32 F.3d 433, 437 (9th Cir. 1994).
And,
"It is one thing to construe the statutory language "to see whether one construction makes more sense than the other as a means of attributing a rational purpose to Congress." Longview Fibre Co. v. Rasmussen, 980 F.2d 1307, 1311 (9th Cir. 1992). It is quite another to treat the purpose, and not the operative words of the statute, as the law. ... We would be writing a different statute, not just construing it, by "treating the words as having no meaning and looking instead to the values underlying the language to be construed so that we can create law effectuating those values." United States v. Martinez-Cano, 6 F.3d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir. 1993) (dissent); Ocra Bay at 436.

[NutCrackerBoy]

As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). -Judge Alex Kozinski

The majority on this decision (the targets of Kozinski's dissent) might as well be slavers. Impeach them.