[Fish out of Water]

bang

[litehaus]

Yeh sure...and the individual STATES can restrict our speech I guess, search our homes at will I guess etc etc...It's just logical HUH? ;>)FMCDH............

[dirtboy]

"Right now," she said, "California -- a state of 35 million people -- is far ahead the rest of the nation in moving toward prudent, sane gun laws which help ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of those who would wantonly kill others."

BWAHAHA! So no criminals have guns in your state, DiFi?

[Lorenb420]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she thought the ruling was "clear confirmation that the government has the ability to place common-sense regulations on firearms."

Yeah that is exactly what I thought after reading "Congress shall make no law" </sarcasm>

What does one have to do to quality as a traitor or enemy of the state these days?

[Kerberos]

"sane gun laws which help ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of those who would wantonly kill others." "

Hey idiot, those who wantonly kill others don't care what your laws say.

[Blood of Tyrants]

States don't have rights. They have only powers that are granted to them by the people.

[coloradan]

"Right now," she said, "California -- a state of 35 million people -- is far ahead the rest of the nation in moving toward prudent, sane gun laws which help ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of those who would wantonly kill others."

Blatant lie - the laws don't proscribe guns from certain people, they proscribe certain types of guns from everyone.

[headsonpikes]

Gotta love the Headline at least...

There's plenty of truth in it.

[Deguello]

The appeals court should wonder why it is called the "Bill of Rights". Only Article X mentions state rights.

[45Auto]

"People (in California) need to realize that there isno legal line standing between them and a complete ban on the possession of arms," Michel said. "The only thing is their own civic activism. The state could ban guns entirely if it wanted to."

[prophetic]

ah well, the left coast does its usual re-invention of the laws as it suits them (which they do every 5 minutes or so).

Having congress & company spend so much time, effort & resources to try and make good laws is totally meaningless because of leftist radical activist judges. They & their cronies have the power & will to overturn them on an whim and makes the whole effort moot.

Meanwhile their underlings constandly flood the courts with lawsuits to bring into existence by litigation what could not arrive by the ballots.

[Redbob]

"Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the decision was "foreseeable as it was avoidable. " He said he didn't support the challenge to the ban based on the Second Amendment grounds because the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already made its position clear in past rulings."

My questions are, Is this NRA guy stupid, silly, or was he just quoted out of context?
KNOWING that the 9th Circuit is going to rule against you doesn't change the fact that, in order to get to the Supreme Court, cases originating in California must go through the 9th Circuit appeals step.

Or was Chuckie really saying the NRA is AFRAID of a Supreme Court ruling?
Myself, I want them to rule even if they rule against the Second Amendment - so I'll know for sure what needs to be done next.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Will the US Senate begin impeachment proceedings against Herr Reinhart, or is Trent Lott just enjoying the time dreaming of segragation days?

[muffaletaman]

From the website of the National Archivist at the The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)...

The Charters of Freedom

The Declaration of Independence The Constitution The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

When you read the first ten amendments to the constitution, it is clear that in each and every one referring to "the people" that it is the powers of government that are being curtailed. The rights of individual citizens are preserved as superior to those of the state.

The 2nd no different from the others...

[El Gato]

Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital

Isn't this the group that "shared" (free) office space with the Million Mom March, not mention officers and staff?

[ezo4]

isnt cali currently fighting about 100,000 gang members right now. Asking for more leo's because they are understaffed. And they want this?