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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (144036)	9/24/2001 10:44:29 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. No doubt you can find a liberal source that would like to spin it that way but it ain't so. 2ndlawlib.org "In sum, it was clear enough to the Supreme Court in 1990 that "the people" in the Second Amendment means individuals generally, as it does in the rest of the Bill of Rights; that the "militia" means the body of armed citizens at large, organized and unorganized; and that the Second Amendment is not relevant to the power of a states to maintain the militia." So individuals, organized or unorganized. That's what I said. "The two 1990 Supreme Court opinions analyzed at the beginning of this article should lay to rest any lingering doubts about the Second Amendment's applicability. First, the right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," the same individuals whose rights are protected by the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. Second, the state power to maintain a militia is defined in the Militia Clause of the text of the Constitution, and is not substantively protected by the Second Amendment.