Replies

Are you familiar with Glenn Reynolds, BB? The law professor from UTENN has created quite a sensation as a blogger at his blogspot INSTAPUNDIT. Apparently he is a prominent and nationally known defender of 2nd Amendment rights. He is socially libertarian, however, so be warned. But you might want to drop by his site to pick up info on 2nd Amendment issues that you might otherwise miss. He has been one of the leaders of the onslaught against Michael Belleiles.

In this 2001 article in National Review, Reynolds and Kopel analyze the Emerson case.

Miller was at the very least consistent with an individual right, and certainly did not stand for a collective right.

Thanks for the link, beckett. RE: Miller (1939). This was a case of country-boy-run-amok-moonshiner types got caught by the Treasury Department for operating a clandestine still. It was all about formal paperwork, and the payment of a fee. I gather the boys in West Virginia (?) just didn't get that part.

And little did they know that the personal arms they were bearing at the time were illegal on two counts: No registration/no tax transaction had ever occurred; and their gun barrels had been illegally trimmed.

Oh, there actually was a third count: "interstate commerce."

None of the above matters. The absol;utely, positively fundamental fact remains -- If you can get before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, it is ONLY because you have STANDING in such Court.

People who argue that United States v. Miller was a triumph for the "collective [state's] right" theory of 2A have to explain how Miller -- not then or ever before a member of anybody's state militia, not to mention the buddy he had with him at the time -- got standing before the Supreme Court. SCOTUS only takes constitutional cases where the rules of jurisprudential standing obtain. If it's a 2A case, and a non-militia type gets due process -- at Supreme Court Level no less!!! -- then you got to figure, 2A jurisprudence cannot possibly be confined to the realm of personal service in a militia.

Miller had standing. as a PERSON, as HIMSELF. The Court itself said so, merely by taking his case. End of story.

Good night beckett. Peace and love, bb.

A few years ago Americans were willing to listen to a president discuss the meaning of "is" as [if] he were at a Modern Language Association meeting. September 11 showed us the face of pure evil. Our nation has seen the enemy plainly, and that vision may be the beginning of the end of postmodernism in America. It is no coincidence that the places in America which have been the most reluctant to call al Qaeda evil have been the places where postmodernism is strongest.
The rest of America has, happily, finally mustered the self-confidence to stand up to this form of radical nihilism.
We will continue to debate the nature of language and of the subatomic, and we will continue to tolerate and celebrate diverse cultures. We can do all of these things without teaching college students (including foreign students who may one day rule their homeland) that living as a serf under the tyranny of Wahhabis, Nazis, or Stalinists is more authentically human than living as a free American.
George Bush is our first post-postmodern president. He can't tell Heisenberg from Heidegger but, unlike them, he can tell right from wrong:
["]It is always and everywhere wrong to target and kill the innocent. It is always and everywhere wrong to be cruel and hateful, to enslave and oppress. It is always and everywhere right to be kind and just, to protect the lives of others, and to lay down your life for a friend.["]

Postmodernism is on its way to the ash heap of history.

beckett, I finally had a chance to go read some Glenn Reynolds at the INSTAPUNDIT site you linked me to above. What a great find!

WRT the above italics: Hopeful signs, indeed. There may well be a "silver lining" in the tragic horror of 9-11 and its sequelae now unfolding in the Middle East. The President gives every indication of firmly possessing a moral center, a moral vision that is sorely needed in the world right now. In today's world, that's like having a target pinned to your backside, or a "kick-me" sign. But I'll put my money on him, and not on the raving postmodernist lunatics who hate the West and all it stands for. (I thought his characterization of Osama bin Laden as a "postmodernist" rather than as some kind of atavistic, pre-modernist "savage" was fascinating....)

Thanks so much for pointing me to a great website -- and a very fine thinker in Glenn Reynolds. All my very best -- bb.