Tuesday, April 21, 2009

From the 9th circuit ruling

Judge Gould of the 9th circuit court goes farther than even Judge Scalia in his assessment of the 2nd amendment and in my opinion he is more correct than Scalia which I suppose makes me a right wing extremist. Do you think I should turn myself in now or wait?

Quote:
GOULD, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion but write to elaborate
my view of the policies underlying the selective incorporation
decision. First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly
explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are
“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and
“necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.”
The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to
bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear
arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be
overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone
can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist
attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country
covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then
assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed
populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes
it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in
an attack on any community before more professional forces
arrived.1 Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against
the possibility that even our own government could degenerate
into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility
should be guarded against with individual diligence.
Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection
against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition
of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment,
and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the
states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of
weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of
the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could
sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right
to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home
for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will
justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the
problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular
regulation by the states and municipalities, what is rea-
sonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and
offensive to the Second Amendment. End quote. He makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive