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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (142431)	2/5/2002 4:34:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578148

n one of the Sup. Ct rulings I posted, the court ruled that they were linked. Do you feel the Ct's interpretation is incorrect? In Miller the court did not actually rule that the right was limited to members of the milita, but rather that it was limited to weapons that might be useful for the milita. I disagree with the ruling but not as much as I disagree with the interpretation of it that you quoted. But its rather academic because even if it is a right for milita purposes, the milita is the people both by historical practice at the time when the constitution was enacted and by current US law. "TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. " www4.law.cornell.edu By this definition I am a member of the militia. What can I say.......the Sup.Ct disagrees. No it doesn't. In old non second amendment cases it agreed. In more recent cases more directly involving the second amendment it has danced around the question. Tim