[45Auto]

Sauders is the token sort-of conservative at the Chronicle. She is not always dead-right, but she is entertaining in a city of almost pure Socialist delusion. She has made some fundamental mistakes in her analysis of the RKBA, but an article like this in the Chron is unusual.

[TigersEye]

It will be interesting to see what the USSC does with this if indeed they see the case.

[Noumenon]

No problemo - we'll settle this and many other questions in the next American Civil War.

[vannrox]

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.

Return to Know Your Rights
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html

[unixfox]

I think it would be prudent to say that, it is our duty as citizens and our collective right to tar and feather this traitor of a judge. Then, throw him to the buzzards.

[Maelstrom]

The fundamental and most noteable flaw is what happens when there actually is a "knock-down no-holds barred fight" with respect to this particular individual right.

[pabianice]

I can't argue against the result of Reinhardt's ruling -- a 3-O decision that California's assault-weapons ban is constitutional. As California Deputy Attorney General Tim Rieger noted, gun ownership can be seen as an individual right and still be subject to restriction in the interest of public safety. That's why your next-door neighbor doesn't own an atomic bomb.

Of course there are several other small problems in owning an atomic bomb, like the $ 200 billion it costs to make one from scratch; the lack of fissable material; the stink your neighbors would make when you open your own foundry and chemical plant in their back yards; etc.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Atlas Sneezed]

"But as Eastman noted, in striking the exemption, Reinhardt essentially wrote a new law: "He's now making it criminal for retired peace officers to possess assault weapons, even though the legislation said it was legal." "

Interesting point. Instead of upholding the prohibition on cops, the court should have tossed the unconstitutional law and let the legislature fix it.

[Tench_Coxe]

"As California Deputy Attorney General Tim Rieger noted, gun ownership can be seen as an individual right and still be subject to restriction in the interest of public safety. That's why your next-door neighbor doesn't own an atomic bomb. "

This is a fundamental error in the author's logic. A total gun ban can be justified by acting in the 'interests of public safety'.

The militia of the time in which the 2nd amendment was written was to bear arms that were readily available to the Continentals. In modern parlance ( and with the correct reference to the Miller ruling ), this means that rifles, pistols, grenades, even mortars that are available to the regular infantry should be available to the militia ( and not just a 'select militia' under whose definition the National Guard falls, but all males ( or, males and females ) between 17 and 60 ).
It becomes a little dicey when it comes to things such as tanks and the like ( since private cannon and armed sloops were available ). Weapons of 'mass destruction' tend to fall outside of the scope of what a typical infantry soldier would bear in combat, so the worn canard of a next door neighbor owning a nuke is facile at best.

[Noachian]

Am I missing something here? Whatever happened to separation of powers? The Ninth Circuit oversteps its bounds when it starts making laws, and should be put in its place.