Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133243)	3/23/2001 7:39:38 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 769667

Clearly, Miller reinforced the interpretation that the 2nd amendment applies to "reasonable relationship" to a "well regulated Militia", and specifically DID NOT GIVE THE RIGHT FOR INDIVIDUALS TO BEAR ARMS outside of that context. Period. Miller v Texas talked about a weapon that had a reasonable relationship to something that would be used by a militia. It didn't say anything about the person having to be a member of a militia. Also Miller was not a member or the National Guard or any US armed forces unit but the court did not dismiss his claim of 2nd amendment protection because of that. It supports the idea that the right is an individual right. Its very weak support but it still is support. Tim