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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Street who wrote (4877)	7/14/2001 8:52:46 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

Mailler was not about the 2nd-- I'm not familiar with the Mailler decision; perhaps you're right. I was referring to the Miller decision. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon..... So you're saying that the words Second Amendment are not related to the Second Amendment. Thanks. You certainly blew my argument out of the water. I had thought that the words Second Amendment related to the Second Amendment; I'm clear now. jttmab

To: The Street who wrote (4877)	7/14/2001 9:10:42 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I like to handle these complex issues in separate posts... helps keep the topics separate.... it was about a shotgun being military or not. What burning Constitutional issue was brought before the Court that required them to consider whether a shotgun was military or not? jttmab

To: The Street who wrote (4877)	7/14/2001 9:15:21 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

Re: Mailler was not about the 2nd-- the guy was dead Whether the dude is dead doesn't make any differece other than he can't claim a victory or a defeat. You could look at the recent case in Texas [death penalty] where the Federal Court has agreed to hear the case, despite the fact that the execution took place. The dude is dead. The Texas attorney general's office noted that it is unusual that the court wishes to hear the case; but the parties agree that the Court is saying that there are Constitutional questions involved that override the trivial detail that the person is already worm bait. jttmab

To: The Street who wrote (4877)	7/14/2001 9:21:31 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

If you would , then the overturning of parts of Brady would trump Miller-- read that decision and Thomas says the 2nd is an individual right in a footnote. My recollection on the Brady case was that the challenge was not based on the 2nd amendement, i.e., there were other constitutional issue[s] that were brought before the Court. For some reason, unknown to me, the NRA did not think it [the Brady Bill] was a 2nd amendment issue or they didn't believe that they had a strong case. In the case of US vs. Miller the violated "rights" of the second were directly put to the Court. Note specifically that the plaintiff cites the 2nd amendment. jttmab