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 (142456)	2/6/2002 11:30:40 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577924

Its not likely to happen I'm not so sure that it will but I think the chance of the supreme court open stating that the right to bear arms is an individual right is probably greater then you think. but if they did, I would appeal it. You would probably not be part of the case, and besides you can't appeal a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. I know this will not make a difference to you but they talk about the militia as regulated by the states.....that was critical to satisfy the objections of the anti Federalists. The militia was a not a rag tag group, running around hither and yon without direction. It wasn't an army either but rather something in between. However, it definitely was not individuals independent of each other with no organization. The militia wasn't a rag tag group, it wasn't a group at all before it was called up. It was individuals with their own weapons. When it was called up then the state controlled it, but the individuals that become part of the militia when called up where often not part of any military organization before the call up, they where just people with their own guns. If the argument that Miller failed to raise in a timely fashion was so compelling, why has in not been brought to bear in other Supreme Ct. cases and ruled upon? There have been very few 2nd amendment Supreme Court cases. United States v. Cruikshank was pre 14th amendment so the bill of rights including the 2nd amendment was not considered to protect people from any thing but the federal government. Presser v. Illinois was not about the right to have a gun. It was an appeal against a law that prohibited "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law . . . ." Miller vs Texas we have already talked about. Other cases involved guns but where 4th or 5th amendment cases not 2nd amendment. Tim