Well, Judge Reinhardt tried real hard in Silveira v Lockyer. The man did go on and on. (But he was on a mission to refute Emerson.)
He stated his reason quite succinctly. Furthermore, he acknowledged the three different interpretations of the second amendment. What he didn't state was why he believed the first clause to be limiting (ie., the RKBA is only associated with a militia), rather than simply descriptive of one possible use for arms.
Ain't that the truth.
What he didn't state was why he believed the first clause to be limiting (ie., the RKBA is only associated with a militia), rather than simply descriptive of one possible use for arms.
Very true. He just assumed it right from the beginning of his meandering disquisition. Furthermore, he argued against himself when he stipulated that words used in one portion of the Constitution should have the same meaning in other portions, because if "people" means one thing in the first amendment, then it should mean the same thing in the second.
So at what point are we justified in concluding that a court opinion is wrong? Here we have a case where they simply made an assumption, utterly contrary to common sense, as well as to established rules of legal construction, without an attempt to justify it. There has to come a point where it's time to bite the bullet and say, "Yep, they screwed that one up."
-----------
P.S. Another whopper from the ruling: "Historians have observed that '[n]o state at the time, nor any state before, had ever compelled people to carry weapons in their private capacity.'" That is flat-out wrong. Several colonies had laws requiring people to carry weapons to church (Indian attacks and such). Also, the 9th Circus obviously never heard of this law (see highlighted).