Log in

Forgot password?

Search the site...


What's next

Trashed puppies almost ready for adoption

The East Bay Animal Rescue and Refuge is screening applicants to adopt three terrier puppies found sealed in a...

Stinson Beach voters reject flood tax

Voters in the Stinson Beach flood control zone have rejected a special 20-year tax for flood mitigation measures.

Marin targets bug with taste for grapes

A destructive insect that could have serious adverse impacts for wineries was discovered in Marin County last week.

Post a comment


  1. This ruling demonstrates a complete misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It suggests that the right to bear arms, and the protection thereof, is only relevant to self-defense. But the 2nd Amendment was never about self-defense; it was and is about defending the security of the free state. In other words, the protection of the 2nd Amendment is not about being able to defend oneself from a rapists or robber; it’s about being able to defend freedom for the government. Limiting the capacity of magazines for the general public, but exempting law enforcement, military, and other government personnel has a direct impact on the ability of the genral public to defend its freedom from the government; and therefore is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. Do these judges really believe that our founders wanted us to ask permission to exercise our rights from the very government that it was trying to protect us from?