The debates of the founding era demonstrate that the second of the first ten amendments to the Constitution was included in order to preserve the efficacy of the state militias for the people’s defense — not to ensure an individual right to possess weapons. Specifically, the amendment was enacted to guarantee that the people would be able to maintain an effective state fighting force — that they would have the right to bear arms in the service of the state.
This opinion makes no sense. Knowing that he is going to be attacked by gun rights enthusiasts, I would think that it would cite good sources. It cites Bellesiles (recently fired for academic fraud), and Parade magazine!
Then he goes on to say that an exemption to a gun-control law for retired cops is unconstitutional because it is contrary to any legitimate state interest. He says that the exemption for off-duty cops has a rational basis.
Gun control laws commonly have exemptions for off-duty and retired cops so that cops will support the laws. If these exemptions were really unconstitutional, many gun control laws would not pass.
Remember, this is the judge who says the Pledge is unconstitutional.
Update: the 2A opinion is trashed in these blogs: Cramer, InstaPundit, Volokh. Probably a lot of others also. This page says, "Judge Reinhardt was reversed by the Supreme Court fully eleven times during the 1996-97 term. He holds the record for unanimous reversals in one term: five".
Post a Comment