[IP] more on How bizarre can it get?? We're about to find out...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dave Wilson <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 29, 2004 3:52:48 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/