Those who would rely on such sources must be engaged in a different project.

We all respect you. You know that, I know that. You've given a long public service that is of great distinction.

They didn't change the law, they actually recognized there was a case of first impression here that had to be decided.

I appreciate the joy and the verve with which you run New York City.

I want to compliment all of you firemen for being willing to stand up in this issue, because this is an important issue for people of whatever race, or gender, or ethnicity.

The case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms is a natural right.

I want to begin here today by looking at your cases in an area that is very important to many of us, and that is the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and your conclusion that the right is not fundamental.

I think it is also important for you to know how I feel about these type of cases.

I think I should be more specific.

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects.

Even the District Court felt that this was an unusual case.

It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a preexisting right.

I just can't understand the claim that you were just sticking to binding, clear, longstanding precedent.

People all over the country are tired of courts imposing their will against one group or another without justification.

If a holding in the Supreme Court means that it is settled, you believe that Gonzalez v. Carhart, upholding the partial birth abortion ban, is settled law.

You can take my word on it.

I do not think you have taken the opportunity on the circuit to be a cause-driven judge.