--- In another gun case, Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal.4th 472 (2000), Brown, writing for the majority, upheld California's Assault Weapons Ban, but only over equal protection, separation of powers, and due process objections, not against a Second Amendment challenge.
However, she does emphasize that the California constitution contains no fundamental right to bear arms; indeed, she points out that the regulation of firearms has always been a proper police function of California.
Evident in Kasler, as in American Academy of Pediatrics, is Brown's strong principle of judicial deference to legislative findings.
______________________________________
Lentus:
She's a dud on RKBA, boys. I smell a gun-hater hiding behind an unconstitutional statute.
I doubt she's a gun hater.. I see her as a constitutional originalist that [once given lifetime tenure on the SCOTUS] would show far less "deference to legislative findings."
RKBA may not be protected by the California constitution, but the Second Amendment was incorporated to the States by the Fourteenth's "Privileges and Immunities" Clause: Amendment XIV. Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which speaks directly to California's gun bans and refusals to issue licenses as infringements on the Second Amendment, never mind whether California ever got around to writing gun rights into its constitution.
Not to mention the clear words of Article VI, which expressly require "all" officials in the USA to support the supreme "Law of the Land", notwithstanding anything to the contrary in State constitutions. --
Given the opportunity, I believe Brown would support the 2nd & 14th amendments, and Article VI.
I would hope so, but the point of my post is that, given a chance to do so in the California case cited loc. cit., she walked right up to the issue, looked it in the eye......and punted.
Notice, by the way, that in the current FR poll on a replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist, neither Scalia nor Thomas was on the list of potential nominees for CJ.
Hmmmmmm.
OK, Karl -- put their names back on the list!!!
Then let's vote.