Not at all. This wasn't a second amendment case -- this was a state of California law which did not violate the California or the federal constitutions. The Ninth ruled correctly in that sense.
As I posted the cases to you, it is well known that the Ninth Circuit 1) considers the second amendment binding only on the federal government, and 2) does not create an individual right. Now, given those two basic known facts, you can see how this wasn't a second amendment case.
However, that didn't stop Judge Reinhardt from taking the opportunity to bitch-slap the Fifth Circuit. And boy, did he. He carried on about "collective right", and militias, and Miller, and on and on. Had nothing to do with Silveira v. Lockyer -- it just gave him the opportunity to present the liberal side of gun rights. Here's an excellent article on the case.
Whether the Second Amendment "creates" a right or not is irrelevant to whether there is a right that is protected.
Here is what I believe:
Truth: The right to keep and bear arms is an individual, unalienable right which is a consequence of the right to life.
Truth: The Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms, not to a "collective right".
Truth: The individual right to keep and bear arms is referred to in the Dred Scott case as being among the privileges and immunities of a free person, without reference to state of residence.
Truth: The Miller decision remanded the case to lower courts on the sole issue of whether a short-barreled shotgun was useful to a militia and did not challenge Miller's right to possess such a weapon if it did have such usefulness.
Your assessment of these items would be useful since you often seem to quote legal cases to establish law without reference to judicial error.
Anti-gunners are forced to subscribe to different theories to accomplish disarmament and they would be much less successful if they were required to be consistent. Instead, when a judge will buy the ridiculous "collective rights" nonsense, then that is what they use. Otherwise, they find themselves dependent upon the notion that a "right to keep and bear arms" can exist but that states can be free to infringe it.
The Supreme Court cannot support gun control with a decision because any decision they might make would likely invalidate gun laws in half the states of the Union.
Not at all. This wasn't a second amendment case -- this was a state of California law which did not violate the California or the federal constitutions.
Bold 'begging the question' idiocy. The Calif 'law' clearly infringes on my US Constitutional right to buy/own an 'assault' styled rifle.
The Ninth ruled correctly in that sense.
Only in the opinions of gun-grabbers, paulsen.
As I posted the cases to you, it is well known that the Ninth Circuit 1) considers the second amendment binding only on the federal government, and 2) does not create an individual right.
Now, given those two basic known facts, you can see how this wasn't a second amendment case.
Neither of your facts leads to that conclusion. The 2nd is part of our 'Law of the Land', which Calif officals & lawmakers are sworn to uphold. - They are violating the 2nd. Case closed, except to pettifogging gun-grabbers.
However, that didn't stop Judge Reinhardt from taking the opportunity to bitch-slap the Fifth Circuit. And boy, did he. He carried on about "collective right", and militias, and Miller, and on and on. Had nothing to do with Silveira v. Lockyer -- it just gave him the opportunity to present the liberal side of gun rights. Here's an excellent article on the case.
Do you know Dave Kopel, paulsen? He is an prime example of the appeasement oriented american gun 'expert', the type who has lead us down the primrose path since 1934.
He can rationalize away most any gun restriction, in his 'wait till next year' philosophy of 'winning'. -- Hell, in one sense he seems to have built a pretty good career around being a professional dupe for the anti-gun movement.