The 9th Circuit insists that the right to possess arms says nothing about the right to buy or sell? Planned Parenthood of Southeast v. Strange, 172 S.Supp.3d 1275, 1290 n. 5 (M.D. Ala. 2016) apparently points out that the right to an abortion is not very meaningful if there is no doctor able to provide one.
I am not keen on abortion (less so, the older I get), but the analogy is strong. If Susanville, California, refused to allow abortion clinics, the 9th Circuit would unquestionably strike it down for violating the magic, invisible clause that guarantees a right to abortion.
"No, that is specifically proscribed by Amendment Pi of the Constitution, in magic invisible ink that only special people can see."
ReplyDeletefrom http://davemunger.blogspot.com/ (in the poll at the top of the page)
Not Amendment e?
ReplyDelete