Copied from another web site:

[DA 20]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
-- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

 

[p238shooter]

I would say, this says it all.

 

[Dave70968]

It should be noted that Judge Kozinski was writing a dissenting opinion, not the opinion of the court. Also, the year is wrong. The case is Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Silveira disagreed with the earlier United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), which held that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Ultimately the issue was settled in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which we all know.

The Heller decision was actually a bit watered down from the DC Circuit Court of Appeal's opinion in Parker v. Dist. of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (the lower court case that was appealed to SCOTUS). In Parker, the court held:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. [emphasis mine]

 

[Dave70968]

I didn't finish my thoughts. 1) Ultimately, Kozinski's dissent was at least substantially validated by the Supreme Court, and 2) from Judge Kozinski's bio on Wikipedia:

Kozinski was born in Bucharest, Romania. In 1962, when he was 12, his parents, both Holocaust survivors, brought him to the United States.

The man knows from whence he speaks.

 

[jakerz]

I didn't finish my thoughts. 1) Ultimately, Kozinski's dissent was at least substantially validated by the Supreme Court, and 2) from Judge Kozinski's bio on Wikipedia:

The man knows from whence he speaks.

Definitely. He has first hand experience to what a government can do. Thanks for all the info.

 

[Dale00]

Thank you. It is great to read scholarly and well reasoned approaches to the subject.