Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen

>>>The U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. I do concede that, properly interpreted, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear a full-auto M-16 ... as a registered member of a state Militia (which no longer exists).<<<

Read the opinion again. The court never questioned Miller's assertion that he was in the militia. They only questioned the validity of a sawed-off shotgun as a militia weapon.


272 posted on 07/29/2006 6:31:28 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]


To: PhilipFreneau
The court never questioned Miller's assertion that he was in the militia.

Backwards. The decision doesn't contain or even reference an assertion by Jack Miller that "he was in the militia".

273 posted on 07/29/2006 7:35:22 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies ]

To: PhilipFreneau
"The court never questioned Miller's assertion that he was in the militia. They only questioned the validity of a sawed-off shotgun as a militia weapon."

As I said, the U.S. Supreme Court never got that far. The Miller decision agreed that only military type arms are constitutionally protected. They remanded the case back to the lower court to make the determination if this shotgun was or was not a weapon that a Militia would use.

279 posted on 07/30/2006 4:53:44 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson