[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]