[rellimpank]

--that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”--

I find this quote from the NYT editorial to be an astounding (and inadvertant, I am sure) admission that I can own an M-16--

[Atlas Sneezed]

“The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.””

---

Note the word “has” before the Miller quote. The NYT wants us to think that the Miller court ruled that the OWNERSHIP was related to a militia. However, in the ruling, it was that the GUN that must have some such relationship.

Here is the quote from Miller:

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.

[DelaWhere]

"Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality."

NYT obviously supports a revisionist Constitution.
But, the question arises - If they didn't really think that it was an absolute right, why would they think that the justices need to modify it to reflect 'modern-day reality'?

[Redcloak]

...The fear is that it will not.

From their lips to God's ears. : - )