And of course, the ATF action occurred under one of the "reasonable" restrictions on the right to keep and bear Arms. Too bad people who "imagine" the government to have such authority cannot set what is a "reasonable" restriction in concrete.

The positions are always some, none, or all. Of course, we know that the 2nd takes "all" out of the question, which leaves us with "some" or "none". A major paradigm of law is that it is consistent and clear to those whom the law affects. So just where is the line that "some" restrictions would draw. Are your "some" the same as my "some" and whose "some" sets the rules? And can "some" change over time? Thus the only logical answer is that the government can set no restrictions in ownership. This is not to say laws concerning the results of an action of keeping and bearing Arms may not be restricted, i.e. murder or unprovoked injury to another with an Arm can still be punished through due process in a court of law. But the point is that the government does NOT have a legitimate claim on being able to make "reasonable" restrictions on what Arms an individual may keep and bear. If we study the ratification debates over the 4th amendment's "reasonable" restriction, we find that in order for any search to be "reasonable", it must be done under a warrant, and that warrant must meet all the requirements as explicitly stated in the 4th.

Comparison to the Fourth Amendment is not the best for a clear understanding of Second Amendment rights. It makes more sense to compare the Second Amendment to First Amendment rights because Madison proposed similar language in his protection for rights of conscience - "nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." [OSA 654]

Also, the House Committee of Eleven took Madison's "shall not be infringed" Second Amendment language and applied it verbatim to all of the other First Amendment rights proposed by Madison and not relating to religion. [OSA,680]

A general comparison of Founding Era language used in First and Second Amendment related rights protection proposals made in ratifying conventions indicates a very similar intent for them. Clearly, there were to be no laws violating those rights - the rights were not to be infringed.

However, today the legal community generally accept that no right is absolute and that any right is subject to "some" regulation. This is in conflict with the Founders' view, which is somewhat different IMHO. First and Second Amendment rights were not intended to be regulated. What were intended to be regulated were abuses of rights by individuals.

Hmm. I haven't read the whole decision yet, but I'm surprised the USDOJ appealed. If they didn't have such a Jones to put Kwan into Club Fed, they probably wouldn't have. The BATFE and this guy have had what could only charitably be considered a "strained" relationship and, although my memory is kind of fuzzy on this, it goes back to threaded Makarov barrels and some kind of a federal employee/agent who was apparently killed with a Makarov that had been fitted with one of these barrels.

It is clear to me, after reading details of many of these gun prosecutions, that the law is an ass.

Kwan is the gentleman that is being persecuted for not kow-towing to the authorities investigating the 2001 murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales. Wales was also a gun-control activist, the president of the Washington branch of Ceasefire. Mr. Wales was shot in the basement of his home by someone using a Makarov pistol that had been rebarreled to .380ACP from 9x18mm Makarov. The Feds decided that they'd go door-to-door to everyone who'd purchased a replacement Makarov barrel and "ask" to test the gun ballistically. (Something similar is now ongoing with .40 caliber Glock pistols in the murder of two young girls in Oklahoma.) Mr. Kwan, according to records, purchased two barrels, but swears he only got one. Since he was uncooperative the BATFE did a raid on his home looking for the other barrel, and instead found the VP70Z pistols and their stocks, and have since made his life hell with this prosecution.

The fact that Kwan is supposed to have purchased two barrels is the only thing (I believe) that puts suspicion on him for having anything at all to do with the murder of Wales.

Yup, this is Justice, BATFE-style.

Is it me or is the BATFE becoming more and more of a rogue organization? They seem to be creating their own rules as they go along, and redefining all the old ones to make it tougher on owners, dealers, and manufacturers.

Is it me or is the BATFE becoming more and more of a rogue organization?

It's just you. Nothing to see here. Move along. Leave your encryption passwords with the receptionist on your way out.

Just as with the local police, the L.E. agencies always seem to stress stops, arrests, raids on the easiest targets to make their numbers look good. In this case it MAY have been a combination of that AND the "retaliation" for not succumbing to their requests.