<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Bear Arms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://atlanticsentinel.com/2010/06/supreme-court-upholds-right-to-bear-arms/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://atlanticsentinel.com/2010/06/supreme-court-upholds-right-to-bear-arms/</link>
	<description>Transatlantic Perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 16:11:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Z</title>
		<link>http://atlanticsentinel.com/2010/06/supreme-court-upholds-right-to-bear-arms/comment-page-1/#comment-3972</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 06:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atlanticsentinel.com/?p=3438#comment-3972</guid>
		<description>Justice Alito&#039;s opinion may create some consternation some advocates of judicial restraint and civil libertarians even though it reaffirmed the constitutional right to bear arms. Advocates of judicial restraint may be troubled by holdings of the decision because reaffirmed many of the heretofore acknowledged limitations on where it is legal to possess arms and furthered the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, a doctrine that advocates of judicial restraint find concerning because of fears that it increases the possibility of Federal intervention into the domestic affairs of the States.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justice Alito&#8217;s opinion may create some consternation some advocates of judicial restraint and civil libertarians even though it reaffirmed the constitutional right to bear arms. Advocates of judicial restraint may be troubled by holdings of the decision because reaffirmed many of the heretofore acknowledged limitations on where it is legal to possess arms and furthered the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, a doctrine that advocates of judicial restraint find concerning because of fears that it increases the possibility of Federal intervention into the domestic affairs of the States.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

