California's New CC Ruling

[Kensal Rise]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

...without the "people" these entities are not protected.

Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[OH Osthaus]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), writing the majority opinion - wrote that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people" to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole.


In his opinion there is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other four amendments.

honestly - to think these word smiths used the term "PEOPLE" in WE THE PEOPLE and 4 other amendments but meant something completely different in just the second amendment stretches credibility even for an activist judge