Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Windsock who wrote (126785)	10/24/2000 7:44:38 PM
From: TimF	of 1577418

OT The quotation in Lewis vs US case that you posted was from a footnote that was in turn quoting US vs Miller. US vs Miller states - " In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. " This does not say that the right is limited to the milita, it instead seems to want to limit the right to the type of weopons that would be useful for the militia. If you continue along those lines it would seem that a fully automatic M-16 should be allowed but perhaps a .22LR rifle would not be protected. In any case the militia both historically and under current US Law consists of all able bodied men who are not convicted felons. I went to the site that you posted a link to. I then went to the links to the cases and commentary that they included and you mentioned. The commentary posted there included - "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." caselaw.lp.findlaw.com If the right is attached to the millita then I am a member of the militia by historical standards and by US law. Certinly the court in 1857 thought that inividuals had the right to keep and bear arms. Thats one of the reasons why they supported keeping full rights away from blacks in the Dred Scott decision. "P. 415) Among the resulting parade of horribles should African-Americans be considered citizens, the Court enumerated the rights of citizens and included the right to arms: "It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." 2ndlawlib.org You might attack this as being part of the Dread Scott deicion but it does show what the court thought then. It also shows the weakness of depending upon Supreme Court decisions say in arguements about what the constitution actually says. Court opinions can change and I'm sure you could find quite a number of them that you felt did not accurately reflect the constitution. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next