Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

In article <481a56b2$0$7055$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:x-B886BB.19255501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <Xns9A91BB1D4F49DVeebleFetzer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Bert Hyman <bert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> In news:x-5F8C5E.18550401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There is a right to self-defense.  However, self-defense only
applies
> >> > to the use of force in a given situation; it doesn't apply to the
> >> > possession of weapons.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >>
> >> But even so, why would the right to own or possess a weapon (whatever
> >> that might be) be any different from the right to own or possess any
> >> other thing?
> >
> > There are lots of non-weapons that you're not allowed to possess
(drugs,
> > national security secrets, forged checks, counterfeit driver's
licenses,
> > etc.) so I don't understand what you're saying here.
> 
> But a right may only be denied (constitutionally) if the law can pass
> STRICT SCRUTINY.
> 
> No current gun control law can pass strict scrutiny.
>
> None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor DoJ
> was able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME,
> SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner.
> 
> One of the rules of constitutional law is that any law (whether a
statute,
> regulation or town ordinance) impacting a fundamental right is subject
to
> strict scrutiny.
> 
> Under strict scrutiny, a judge must presume that the law in question is
> invalid, and a court will uphold the law only if it is found it be 
narrowly
> tailored to further a compelling government interest. Laws that  are
> subject to strict scrutiny frequently are struck down as
unconstitutional.
> 
> In order to be constitutional, laws infringing on rights must serve
> narrowly defined "compelling state interests" and avoid unnecessary
> infringement on individuals' rights unless there is a direct and
> provable connection between the individual and the interest served.
> 
> For there to be a compelling state interest, there must be:
> 
> 1. A major problem;
> 
> 2. Clear and direct proof the proposed restriction would significantly 
> reduce
>    that problem; AND
> 
> 3. any restriction must be NARROWLY tailored, in general this means the
>    smallest possible restriction of rights and that the restriction must
not
>    apply to the law-abiding due to bad behavior of others, i.e., without
due
>    process; AND
> 
> 4. clear evidence that no other method is available and that no
restriction
>    that was less burdensome on the populace would be effective.

This is first-year law school material.  If people on usenet know this, 
doncha think the lawyers and judges do?  And there HAVE been gun control 
statutes that have met this standard, whether you agree with the court's 
reasoning or not.