[Jim Verdolini]

The funding is not an issue, the granting of permission, a Letter of Marque, is the issue. Do you grant the government a right to limit your second amendment rights to a permission? No government permission, no right?

No, the second amendment protects an individual in the ownership of a specific class of weapons. ALL the court cases support this interpretation. Cannons are not in this class.

That is not saying you cannot own a cannon. it is saying that both the feds and the state have a right to restrict your ownership. They have no such right to restrict your ownership of a rifle, shotgun, or handgun with any suitability to the militia.

Read US v Miller or Emmerson and you will get a better idea of what the law really is.

Then consider....if all the federal supreme court precident prohibits the feds from limiting ones ability to privately own arms suitable for a militia, how did they manage to pass the assault weapons ban?

My answer is that it was never attacked using this precident.

[Dead Corpse]

I've read Miller. The Fed Gov had no just power, powers given by the Constitution, to even rule on the issue. The case should have been thrown out. Period.

Letters of M&R let ship owners go out and play pirate against the pirates. It neither restricted a Right, nor granted them permission to arm.

[ctdonath2]

it is saying that both the feds and the state have a right to restrict your ownership.

Show us where that "right" is granted to the government by the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment, having no limitation upon what constitutes "arms", clearly indicates the gov't has no such right.

Either produce an early law or Founding Fathers quote indicating the word "arms" specifically excludes larger-than-individual weapons, or you have no basis for your argument. Remember: several Founding Fathers owned their own cannons; did they somehow violate their own laws?

[El Gato]

if all the federal supreme court precident prohibits the feds from limiting ones ability to privately own arms suitable for a militia, how did they manage to pass the assault weapons ban?

Actually the Supreme Court never stooped to accept a case challenging the AWB. Plus the Congress and the President rarely consider the Courts precedents or the Constitution in passing laws these days (they once did, as when they "got around" the lack of power to ban or regulate guns by taxing the snot out of them, ignoring the fact that they can't use powers that they do have to violate the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, that being the whole point of passing the BoR in the first place.)

[newsgatherer]

Read US v Miller or Emmerson and you will get a better idea of what the law really is.

I'm familar with Miller vs USA, about 1939 or so, Mr. Miller was unable to appear in court, since he had died before the court date, but I am not familar with Emmerson, can you give me a bit of info?