# 9th Circuit denies individual right to own guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 6, 2002, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919 "2002-12-06T14:56:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/41 "2002-12-06T21:39:33Z")
Gee, december, would you like me to find a case where the conservatives pulled one out of their asses? I’d point to _Hans v. Louisiana_ as a particularly horrid example, where the states’ rights conservatives invented an entire clause for the 11th Amendment that isn’t even remotely in the original text. We could go on like that, conservative tit for liberal tat, all day long. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/42 "2002-12-06T21:55:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* I’d point to _Hans v. Louisiana_ as a particularly horrid example, where the states’ rights conservatives invented an entire clause for the 11th Amendment that isn’t even remotely in the original text. \*\* **minty** , you have said or implied that self-styled “strict constructionists” are as willing to ignore the words of the Constitution as the liberals are, but merely differ in the policy they prefer. Your example does little to prove your assertion. That case was decided 112 years ago! And, I assume the writers of the decision were Democrats, since you called them “states’ rights conservatives.” Furthermore, AFAIK the writers of that decision never claimed to be “strict constructionists.” ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/43 "2002-12-06T21:55:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\*I guess might depend upon whether the italicized bit in “the right of _the people_ to keep and bear arms” is taken to mean the people collectively or people individually. \*\* Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the **states** peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the **states** to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment IV The right of the **states** to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the **states** Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the **states**. Yeah, that works :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/44 "2002-12-06T21:57:04Z")
I understand your argument, but to quote a great legal mind > [@](#): > > Alas, the law is what the law is, and it ain’t what you want it to be. 🙂 You might have a good policy argument, but if the courts treat it as law, it’s law. And, for example, _Korematsu v. United States_ established strict scrutiny of racial classifications, yet the internment camps were found to be OK. _Strickland v. Washington_ follows a similar pattern – an analysis of the Sixth Amendment followed by the Court telling Strickland that his case doesn’t rise to ineffective assistance of counsel. Neither of these cases are treated as dicta. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/45 "2002-12-06T22:13:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalashnikov \* > \*\*Amendment I > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the **states** peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > > Amendment II > > A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the **states** to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. > > Amendment IV > > The right of the **states** to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > Amendment IX > > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the **states** > > Amendment X > > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the **states**. > Yeah, that works :rolleyes: \*\* **?** ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/46 "2002-12-06T22:16:23Z")
Establishing the proper standard of review is a necessary requirement of every case, **Zoff**. Besides, even if you wanted to treat the standard of review as dicta in those two cases, plenty of other Supreme Court decisions have established the same principles in circumstances where it _would_ make a difference to the outcome of the case. If the Fifth Circuit ever revisits the issue in an outcome-determinative context, then we’ll have something more than dicta. Don’t feel bad, though. The principle of judicial review established in _Marbury v. Madison_ is also dicta, and that’s some pretty venerable stuff there. So, **Kalashnikov** , you mean you prefer a different interpretation of the Second Amendment? Alas, the law is what the law is, and it ain’t what you want it to be. 😛 **december** , I cited _Hans_ as a particularly egregious example, but it is hardly the only one. I’d rather not hijack this to Cuba and back, however. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/47 "2002-12-06T22:37:30Z")
By the way, Kalashnikov, you highlighted the wrong word in the Second Amendment. Here, let me fix that up for you: > [@](#): > > A well regulated **Militia** being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It’s the “Militia” phrase that the Supreme Court decided limited the scope of the “Arms” covered to those bearing a relationship to military use, just as the “Militia” requirement is what the courts have held to be the reason it’s only a collective right. Damn those pesky drafters, huh? There’s also no comma after “Militia.” Gotta be careful in these sorts of things. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/48 "2002-12-06T22:49:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > Besides, even if you wanted to treat the standard of review as dicta in those two cases, plenty of other Supreme Court decisions have established the same principles in circumstances where it would make a difference to the outcome of the case. _Korematsu_ is really the only case on strict scrutiny of racial classification. And if later decisions did establish the principle of _Strickland_ those cases cited _Strickland_ as law, not as dicta to be turned into law. For instance, the very first citation of _Strickland_ by the Supreme Court was to say > [@](#): > > there is generally no basis for finding a Sixth Amendment violation > unless the accused can show how specific errors of counsel undermined the reliability of the finding of guilt. See Strickland v. Washington [_United States v. Cronic_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=466&page=648#t26) Here the Supreme Court cited _Strickland_ for the proposition propounded in the original case, not as a good idea they choose to adopt. So, clearly, there are cases where the _Emerson_-type of decision is law. Some academics and attorneys will say it’s dicta, some won’t. How do you tell who’s right? I’d say that you look to see what the courts think about it, since they’re the ones who matter. And they are saying _Emerson_ isn’t dicta. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/49 "2002-12-06T23:01:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I’d rather not hijack this to Cuba and back, however. \*\* Cuba! NOOOOOO!!! [sub]runs screaming out of the thread[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/50 "2002-12-06T23:03:08Z")
Like I said, determining the the proper legal standard is a necessary part of _every_ judicial decision, so those cases aren’t dicta. But this assertion: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoff \* > _Korematsu_ is really the only case on strict scrutiny of racial classification. is entirely incorrect. Any number of Supreme Court opinions establish the parameters of strict scrutiny for race-based classifications, as required by the Equal Protection clause. Try _Loving v. Virginia_ (1967), the interracial marriage case, for one prominent example. The only way _Korematsu_ is unique is that it was the first case to do so, and that it’s the only case where a race-based classification survived strict scrutiny (to the historical chagrin of the Court and the nation). > [@](#): > > Some academics and attorneys will say it’s dicta, some won’t. How do you tell who’s right? I’d say that you look to see what the courts think about it, since they’re the ones who matter. And they are saying _Emerson_ isn’t dicta. “They”? Who’s this “they,” kemo sabe? All I see is _Silveira_, yesterday’s 9th Circuit decision. Did I miss some? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/51 "2002-12-06T23:13:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **If you apply the militia clause to “the people” of the second clause, just as Miller does to the “arms,” you end up with a reading that the people = the militia.** Yeah, if you did that, I suppose you might. However, SCOTUS didn’t do that, no matter how much you wish they did. _Miller_ limits only the types of arms that may be owned, not who may own them. _U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez_, which I’ve cited to you before, indicates that the Supreme Court believes that the phrase “the people” in the second amendment refers to individuals, same as the fourth amendment. > [@](#): > > \*\*There’s also no comma after “Militia.” Gotta be careful in these sorts of things. \*\* [Yes there is.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii) You’ll get no argument from me on what the state of the law _is_. However, unlike you, I can plainly see that the majority of the circuits are mistaken, misreading _Miller_ and pulling new law out of their asses. This must be corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/52 "2002-12-06T23:15:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*By the way, Kalashnikov, you highlighted the wrong word in the Second Amendment. Here, let me fix that up for you:It’s the “Militia” phrase that the Supreme Court decided limited the scope of the “Arms” covered to those bearing a relationship to military use, just as the “Militia” requirement is what the courts have held to be the reason it’s only a collective right. > > Damn those pesky drafters, huh? > > There’s also no comma after “Militia.” Gotta be careful in these sorts of things. \*\* > [@](#): > > Froot Loops, being an important part of this complete breakfast, **The right of the people** to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not significantly different from what the 2nd Amendment says now. It gives an explanation in the subordinate clause, and safeguards the right (which belongs to **the people** , not the militia) in the primary one. And it does not say that only people who eat Froot Loops are allowed to bear arms, nor does it say that the Froot Loops themselves are allowed to regulate the possession of arms. The people are the ones the right belongs to, and the Froot Loops are the reason it’s vital that the people be armed. There is one way to read it that is not dishonest or ignorant, and that is to acknowledge that the text says what it says. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nowhere does it say anything about the right of the militia or the states to do anything. It says THE PEOPLE, it means THE PEOPLE. Personally, I hope the SC does review this and make a ruling, so you’ll finally shut up. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/53 "2002-12-06T23:29:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **That case was decided 112 years ago!** I seem to recall another time [you were wanting to excuse the historical behavior of a group of people](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2544811#post2544811) while [simultaneously condemming another, extremely similar, group of people’s almost identical behavior](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=141317). Why should the age of the case make a difference? Human nature really hasn’t changed much in those 112 years. Politicians, including judges, of every stripe can still bend the rules when they feel it’s justified. Your continual assertions that politicians of one stripe(those with ideals most opposite you own) do it more frequently or more severely than politicians of another stripe(those whose ideals more closely match your own) fall apart under even simple scrutiny. This simply serves to highlight your own bias and reduce the effectiveness of your position. As for the OP, the constitutional ammendment gives the rights of regulation of the right to bear arms into the hands of the states. For the most part state constitutions pass this right on to their citizens. [Here is a page with constititional snippets and article/section references for each state](http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/guncontrol.html)(warning, this site may attempt to play the star spangled banner at you). Note that most of these have built-in provisions against concealed weapons and it doesn’t say that ALL TYPES of arms are protected, simply that the rights of people to bear “arms” shall be protected. As long as it’s legal to own a .22, even if everything more powerful were outlawed, this test would still be “technically” passable. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/54 "2002-12-06T23:30:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Alas, the law is what the law is, and it ain’t what you want it to be. Isn’t that what they said about slavery? Probably with the same “neener neener neener!” attitude, too. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/55 "2002-12-06T23:34:16Z")
Hey there, **Joe**! I guess you would prefer a different interpretation of the Second Amendment too, huh? Oh well, the law is what the law is. Such a shame. Hey, are you gonna claim once again that _Miller_ recognizes an individual right? Because I’m still waiting for you to come up with that language, ya know. I’ve given up on seeing you concede your claim on that regard is in error. Oh, and thank you very much for your kind wish that I will shut up. Not bloody likely, _compadre_. Hey, **Max**! Good of you to drop by. You too would prefer a different interpretaion, huh? Well, get cracking on that amicus brief to the Supreme Court. Also, sources apparently differ on the comma. The Con Law textbook I checked doesn’t have it, but it turns out the one next to it on my shelf does. [The Government Printing Office](http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html) says no comma, but [Findlaw](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/) says there is. Anyone know if there’s a graphic version of the original text anywhere online? Hey **SPOOFE** , thanks for popping in. That slavery comparison really clinches the argument, don’t you think? I mean, boy howdy, gun control and slavery, jeez, I just don’t know how to distinguish those two. You win. By the way, there’s yet another case to add to my list of Court of Appeals decisions accepting the collective rights approach: _United States v. Graham_, 305 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2002). Poor little Fifth Circuit, all by its lonesome self. ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/56 "2002-12-06T23:38:13Z")
WHOOSH! Some of you missed the point that I was refering to the post I quoted: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by David Simmons > I guess might depend upon whether the italicized bit in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is taken to mean the people collectively or people individually. and showing what the Bill of Rights must mean if “the people” means “the states” rather than “individuals”. I thought the :rolleyes: (not to mention my well known position on the subject and indeed my username) would have made it clear that “Yeah, that works” was supposed to be sarcastic. Of course I believe that “the people” means individuals, but if that’s not the case, why _did_ the authors of the Constitution use the word “people” to mean one thing in the second amendment and something else in the others? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/57 "2002-12-06T23:45:16Z")
They didn’t. Rather, it is the Militia clause that courts cite as the source of the limitation on who gets to possess what. Check out Part I.B.1 of the 9th Circuit’s [opinion](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/%24file/0115098.pdf?openelement) (.pdf file), starting on page 25. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/58 "2002-12-06T23:45:39Z")
And anyway, there’s another reason to believe the circuit courts have badly misinterpreted the intention of the framers. They believed state-sponsored militia to be anathema to a free people. They believed a free people should be permitted the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. This can hardly mean they’d provide a mechanism whereby only the state militias had a right to keep firearms while also providing a mechanism that would permit private citizens to be disarmed. I quote Federalist 29 written by Alexander Hamilton: > [@](#): > > By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse: > > "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well- regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. And also Federalist 24: > [@](#): > > Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as ruinous to private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature. I think the intention is clear. I’ve no idea how the circuit courts have come to any other conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/59 "2002-12-06T23:52:25Z")
Nice quotes, **Uncle Beer**. I won’t reprint it here, but you may wish to read part I.B.2 of the _Silveira_ opinion, which does a mighty fine historical analysis showing that it was the militias _as part of the state government_ that so greatly concerned the drafters of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919/60 "2002-12-06T23:54:01Z")
That starts at p. 39, by the way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9th-circuit-denies-individual-right-to-own-guns/140919.md?page=4)