To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (4974 ) 7/16/2001 3:19:23 AM From: jttmab Respond to I see two different thoughts being presented. If state constitutions looked to orignal intent (and I think they did) then they are important to the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. considerations that are the aid; not the State Constitutions? I believe it is within their perogative to afford their citizens more rights than the US Constitution provides. The requirement is that they must not conflict. Hypothetically, a State may have considered the 2nd amendment and concluded that it's a collective right and not an individual one. Perhaps they then decided that, in their view the 2nd was insufficient and wrote the States Constitution to include an individual right. It is within their perogative to do so, and it does not conflict with the 2nd. The other alternative is that they concluded the 2nd was an individual right. But isn't it the consideration that's more the aid and not the State Constitution? In either case, the Court could consider it, the aid, and conclude: What a bunch of bozos!Here's a discussion of the mis-citation of Miller. It was a case appealed by the federal side, so any claims that there has been no dispute about the individual/group aspect is obviously false. I also believe while a shotgun or handgun is adequate for personal defense against crime, other weapons are in order as regards tyranny, however unpleasant the thought may be. Thus I look at an M-16 or AK-47 as a tool fit for a specific purpose and not a "murderous object". unpleasant . But free speech, is not without limits. What are the limits on arms? AK-47s, grenade launchers, tanks, F-16s, chemical weapons? There can never be a clear line. But what's the fuzzy line? Is there a fuzzy line.
