The Ninth Circuit is NOT the Supreme Court. I would have thought someone as willing to quote legal history as you are would know that.
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit is the most corrupt, liberal, socialist, anti-american court in the country. It is also the circuit that holds the dubious honor of having that largest number of its decisions overturned by the actual Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than all the other circuit courts COMBINED.
In other words, the Ninth Circuit Court is WRONG!
Explain this to me:
The the First Amendment right of the people to peaceably assemble is an individual right.
The Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects is an individual right.
The Ninth Amendment's open affirmation of non mentioned rights retained by the people refers to individual rights.
BUT ...
For some reason the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual right? Instead, it's some vague concept like a "collective right"?
And for that matter, just what is a "collective right"? How can a group have rights that the individuals in that group do not? Isn't that just mob rule?
The plain answer is that all rights are individual rights. If they're not, then they're not rights, they're powers or privileges for a few.
And another thing. You say these rights are not "granted by the Constitution". Well, that statement is correct, but not in the way you think it is. Look at Amendment Nine. It clearly says the rights therein are "enumerated". It does not say "granted". That means the Bill of Rights merely lists and numbers them, it does not grant them. They exists a priori. By the Ninth Amendment, the people posses these rights whether or not they are mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution, and the government, does not have the authority to grant these rights, just as it does not have the authority to take them away.
Your arguments, really, just make me ill. You take it as an assumption that the courts are the highest authority in this country. You believe that the Constitution only means what a court says it means. Well, you're wrong. The Constitution means what the Constitution says. It's really not a difficult document to read and understand. But throughout history, judges and politicians have done their damnedest to twist, pollute, and dilute the test of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in support of their own political agendas. Sure, they've have the political power to do so, but they never had the authority or the right.
And yet you seem to think that that is just fine. You are so proud of your ability to quote legal minutia that you never analyze the legal decisions themselves. You readily agree to the recent unconstitutional Kelo decision just because the Supreme Court claimed it was constitutional. You blindly accept the legal decisions of a Supreme Court with justices like Ginsberg who firmly believe that so called "international law" supersedes our own Constitution. By your logic, she managed to sleaze her way onto the court, so she must be right. You accept the Ninth Circuit's obviously incorrect claim that the Second Amendment, unlike all the other Amendments, only refers to an "collective" right. You twist your head around so much that you even accept something as self contradictory as the concept of a "collective right". You've wrapped yourself up in the cloak of weasel words and false justifications provided t your by corrupt legal decisions. And you're proud of it.
You, sir, are an enabler of corruption, and an ally of tyrants.
Well said..
Our boyo will now "shut up", as he can't "put up" anything rational in rebuttal.
No it is not. I did cite three Supreme Court cases, however. Miss them? I also cited a 7th Circuit decision. Miss that one also? All of the cites, including the cites from the 9th Circuit, are consistent.
"For some reason the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual right?"
Changing the argument? Have you conceded that the second amendment does not apply to the states? Good.
As to the RKBA being an individual right, only the 5th Circuit has ruled that way (once) in all of recorded history.
"The Constitution, and the government, does not have the authority to grant these rights, just as it does not have the authority to take them away."
But of course. I never said any differently.
"By the Ninth Amendment, the people posses these rights whether or not they are mentioned in the Constitution."
Yes they do. But nowhere is it written that the government must protect these rights.
"And for that matter, just what is a "collective right"?"
That citizens may bear arms as part of a militia only.
The courts have interpreted the second amendment (which only applies to the federal government -- as we've agreed) to mean that the federal government is prevented from infringing on the right of the states to form a well regulated militia, the state militia being necessary to the security of a free State and all that.
"The Constitution means what the Constitution says."
As interpreted by ... who? You? Are you to define an unreasonable search? A speedy trial? Excessive bail? Free speech?
Ah. Maybe "the people" are to interpret the U.S. Constitution. There you go. That's the ticket.
Do you think "the people" could compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 before they go back to watching Wheel of Fortune?
After all, "It's really not a difficult document to read and understand." Idiot.