No, correctly in that she had/has no other choice under existing precedent.
"It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed."
In your opinion and my opinion, but not in the opinion of the currently constituted courts of the USA. You can indulge in all the wishful thinking you want---that isn't going to change the reality of the situation one iota.
The ONLY way the situation will change to the position you and I want is if the Supreme Court over-rules the Ninth Circuit. And the only way to assure that is to fight like hell to get "strict constructionist" judges appointed to any "Bush term" vacancies. Give Justice Brown's writings, I would support her in such an appointment.
The only other alternative is to go ahead and start "Revolutionary War II" and hope our side wins.
~ " --- she is following the law correctly."
"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition.
It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.
No, correctly in that she had/has no other choice under existing precedent.
She had a choice in the opinion I cited earlier. She refused to support the 2nd Amendment.
You can indulge in all the wishful thinking you want---that isn't going to change the reality of the situation one iota. The ONLY way the situation will change to the position you and I want is if the Supreme Court over-rules the Ninth Circuit. And the only way to assure that is to fight like hell to get "strict constructionist" judges appointed to any "Bush term" vacancies. Give Justice Brown's writings, I would support her in such an appointment.
I doubt she will agree with your position.
I suspect that if we do see a 'Bush Court' rule on the 2nd, they will rule that our individual right can be 'regulated' to exclude possession of any arms society deems reasonable, as per Canada, England & Australia.
Kiss your rights good by.