more on How bizarre can it get?? We're about to find out...

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave Wilson <dave () wilson net>
Date: September 29, 2004 3:52:48 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on How bizarre can it get?? We're about to find 
out...


 Fourth, the right to "keep" firearms is enshrined in the Bill of 
Rights 
 while the right to own an iPod is not as constitutionally explicit. 
 Like other rights in the BoR, the Second Amendment protects an 
 individual right to own firearms (arguably) similar to whatever is 
 being used in the military. See Prof. Eugene Volokh's testimony to 
 Congress:
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
 "The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep 
 and bear arms."

 Best,
 Declan

 The Supreme Court respectfully disagrees :-). In 1939, the Court 
settled the argument, declaring in U.S. v Miller that the Second 
Amendment does not guarantee the right of an individual to keep and 
bear arms, but rather has the "obvious purpose" of assuring "the 
continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state 
milita, as stated in the Amendment itself. Challenges to this ruling in 
1969 and 1980 were squashed. And finally, in two decisions made in 1965 
and 1990, the Court specifically declared that the militia referred to 
by the Second Amendment means the U.S. National Guard.

 Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment 
twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and 
upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. 
Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that 
the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.
 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/