[b]Here is an article in the The Christian Science Monitor:[/b]

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/08/02/p2s1.htm[/url]

[b]Here is my reply to one of its points:[/b]

Liz Marlantes states in her article: "the sole Supreme Court decision on the matter in 1939
. . . held that the amendment only guarantees the collective rights of states to keep militias".  

This is false. From UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) :

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."

The Supreme Court in this case is concerned with the nature of the weapon, not with Miller's standing (or lack thereof) in a state militia. If you have any doubts about this, you can review the Aymette decision cited by the Supremes:

" The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution. . . . As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin.These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."

And:

"The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before
described, as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character."

It is clear from Miller and Aymette that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to own arms, but that not all possible types of arms are protected, and not all means of carrying arms are protected.


Miller:
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174[/url]

Aymette:
[url]http://www.2ndLawLib.org/court/state/21tn154.html[/url]

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/08/02/p2s1.htm[/url]

Some won't be happy until Bush and Ashcroft are photograped nightly in a room filled with ammo cases, with M16's slung over their shoulders, wearing Rambo t-shirts and camoflauge.

I, on the other hand, figure that ANYONE who pisses off the antis is a friend of mine, and will find more kind words to say about them, than negative words.

I HOPE Bush and Ashcroft give us more freedom. I really do. But for today, its enuf that they are giving the antis an Alka Seltzer Day.

Good article, but the changes made so far by bush haven't been that drastic, but you have to start somewhere and this is good as any.

That's why I posted it here as well. At least someone will see it.

I'm tired of these media types claiming that the Miller decision was that only state militias were protected.

As far as Bush goes, he's been better than I expected, and I actually like him. I'm a (small L) libertarian, and I match Brown's beliefs much closer than Bush's. I voted Bush anyway.

Geo. Bush Jr. is my man.  When the antis are whining about rescinding, diluting, hijacking etc. current gun control laws, I am truly in hog-heaven.

I probably won't be happy until "I" could do that in public without someone calling the cops.  Maybe I played too much D&D in my youth.  [:D]

For now though, giving the anti's that "alka seltzer day", puts a little grin on my face.

Be careful of the phrase "state militia" it is a trick by the left--the 2nd says nothing about "state" militias.  Check out keepandbeararms.com for a recent discussion about this.

There was a show one night on 'The Guns of Israel" where a woman said that over there people would stop and pick up a soldier walking down the road, and armed civilians, all the time, but she would not do the same thing here.  What's the damn difference?  I think the way they do it is great, but I think the 'I wouldn't do it in the US' sucks.

Here is the e-mail I sent in response to this article:


I actually had an anti-gunner say those things about real criminals vs. us.


I loved this.  The Supremes seem to be saying that we have the right to have the same weaponry as the military.