[Double Tap]

That is quite easy. Her dissenting opinion was that the communities had exceeded their regulatory authority. She did not say that she thought gun shows could not be banned, just that the cities could not do it.

If the state had done it, it would have been interesting to see her opinion then. Since we don't have that, I will have to conclude that her opinion on guns and gun rights lies in her support of the assault weapons ban.

[rdb3]

Since we don't have that, I will have to conclude that her opinion on guns and gun rights lies in her support of the assault weapons ban.

What's "easy" is the evidence of a simple mind that I'm seeing.

Since you do not like her take on assault rifles, you extrapolate to condemn her in her entirety.

Lastly, it could also be interpreted that her decision on gun shows could include both the right to keep and bear arms and the smiting of city ordinances which go beyond their purview. You see the one, ignore the other, but are fooling no one.

T-minus 34 days until the birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[dirtboy]

If the state had done it, it would have been interesting to see her opinion then. Since we don't have that, I will have to conclude that her opinion on guns and gun rights lies in her support of the assault weapons ban.

No, you cannot. What you can conclude is that she is a practitioner of judicial restraint, as she resisted the temptation to expand her dissent beyond the immediate boundaries of the case before her, something good conservative jurists do.