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 (144122)	9/25/2001 5:20:19 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

The real question is whether the 2d Amendment of the Constitution, as interpreted by the federal Courts, provides a personal right to bear arms absent any relation to "a well regulated militia". The Court in United States v Miller says there is absolutely no such right. No they didn't say that. They said that in that case he hadn't established his position as a member of the militia, which was the basis of his defense. The court didn't address the right of the individual to possess firearms. I don't have the links with me that address this issue but I'll dig them up tonight. EP

To: Windsock who wrote (144122)	9/25/2001 11:14:26 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

The real question is whether the 2d Amendment of the Constitution, as interpreted by the federal Courts, provides a personal right to bear arms absent any relation to "a well regulated militia". The Court in United States v Miller says there is absolutely no such right. secondamendment.net United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 86 S.Ct. 816 (1939) lends considerable support to the proposition that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, through selective quotation numerous appellate courts have cited Miller as authority for their claim that the Second Amendment guarantees only a collective right of States to maintain militias. Miller involved the indictment of Jack Miller and a cohort for unlawfully transporting a short-barrelled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. When the case was at the trial court level, Miller's attorney filed a motion to dismiss the indictment (a demurrer) on the grounds that the portion of the National Firearms Act under which Miller had been charged violated the Second Amendment. The trial judge granted the motion and the charges against Miller were dismissed. Jack Miller promptly departed for parts unknown. The United States, however, filed an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. When the case was argued only the government was represented -- and only its side of the case was presented to the Justices. The Supreme Court in Miller did not say that the decision of the lower court was wrong. Instead, it reversed the trial court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings on the question as to whether a short-barrelled shotgun is the type of firearm that had utility for militia use. The individual nature of the Second Amendment right asserted by Jack Miller was never questioned by the Supreme Court. This is a critical point in analyzing Miller. If the Second Amendment guaranteed only a right of States the Court would have summarily disposed of Miller's claim on the grounds that he lacked standing to assert it. more follows....