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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (239240)	3/17/2002 11:52:25 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

For once, you are correct, as I stated in another message: In the US v Miller case the defendant was indicted for transporting a sawed-off shotgun through interstate commerce without a tax-stamp. The trial court dismissed the indictment, but the Supreme Court reinstated it. Its reasoning was that "it is not within judicial notice that a [sawed-off shotgun] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense." And thus protected under the Second Amendment as an implement of the "well-regulated militia." The sawed-off shotgun wasn't protected (and therefore could be taxed, or infringed) because it couldn't contribute to the common defense. Rifles, pistols, and non-sawed off shotguns can contribute and are therefore protected under the amendment. So welcome to the militia, my friend. If you follow your argument to the end, you should procure some rocket launchers so you will be properly equipped when called up. By the way, a sawed-off shotgun is the thing that resulted in the siege at Ruby Ridge. The government tried to sting Weaver by buying a sawed-off from him.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (239240)	3/18/2002 12:31:28 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

There are three interesting things about the court's statement. First, of course it was not in their notice; nobody was present to bring it to their notice! Second, had a knowledgeable advocate been present, he would have brought to the court's notice that short-barrelled shotguns have long been used as ordinary military equipment, from Revolutionary War blunderbusses to luparas in the Spanish-American War to trench-brooms in The War To End All Wars. Subsequently, U.S. troops used sawed-off shotguns in World War II, and "tunnel rats" used them in Vietnam. Third, and most important, is that the court seems to be saying that the Second Amendment only protects the right of individual citizens to have "ordinary military equipment." Very interesting. Using this line or "reasoning", it misght be possible to outlaw "sporting" arms but not so-called "assualt weapons"! What are semi-automatic "assault rifles" if not ordinary military equipment? When California's assault rifle ban reaches the Supreme Court, Miller will present a real problem for the anti-gunners Good nite all!