UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

findlaw.com ^ | May 15, 1939 | Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS

[budwiesest]

What amazes me is that were it not for state boundries, none of this would have occurred. So I ask, given that the states are now mere factions of their once proud selves and must bow to practically every edict given them by the feds, why must we continue this 'state border' facade? To inspect fruit?

The second ammendment basically tells all regulatory authority (Fed, State, County, Local, etc.) to "pound-sand" with regard to infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. And if it possesses any usefullness at all in the hands of a citizen (militia) called to put-down say, an insurrection, even the lowly potato gun would qualify.

The second ammendment doesn't recognize state-lines, county-lines, city-limits, or school grounds. What it does recognize is that without it, you sure as hell, will not be living in a "free state".

[neverdem]

Those Law Review articles and academia can surprisingly influential (for good or bad) with a number of courts.

If you haven't read Scalia's opinion, it appears that you were prophetic.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER

We dodged a bullet - BIG TIME!

[Darren McCarty]

Not really prophetic. I've just read enough con law cases in my lifetime to see that. Also considering the lack of strong precident on this, it was ripe to look at everything. Irony is that I was reading instapundit and volokh conspiracy this morning, and both of those profs I believe were cited. Kates and Barnett as well. Those are four of the most prominent scholars on this issue for the pro side. And Volokh congratulated Brian Frye....the same article you sent me was cited by Scalia.

The lesson as Volokh says - Scholarship matters. Good law reviews and research can influence some of the biggest decisions of this land.