Replies

Here's my take. Looking at original intent, the Founders knew what arms where, and also knew what artillery was. The right guaranteed was to arms, not artillery. So when someone asks if the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to a missle or an attack helicopter, the answer is that the guarantee ends at arms.

As to "shall not be infringed" the word infringe leaves a little wiggle room. Unobstructed might be a good definition. Any waiting period is an obstruction. Unfortunately, a database probably is not.

Finally, as to Miller, it is 100% constitutional. The finding is spot on. The supreme Court in Miller held that even criminals are entitled to possess military-style weapons. The Court then stated that it didn't know if a sawed-off shotgun was a military style weapon. (Since Korea and Vietnam, we now know.) Since Miller wasn't there in court, and no one volunteered, it became a missing fact. The Court stated that is had no notice of the type of weapon being of a character (military) to be protected under the Second Amendment. Had Miller mounted a defense, and showed the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, we'd all be owning M-16s today.

This means that your .380 Astra is probably not protected, but your AR-15 is.

Many district courts have quoted Miller incorrectly, presuming it's holding to be different. Most say that Miller stands for a militia being guaranteed the right to arms. In reality, it states that individuals, even criminals, are guaranteed a right to military-type arms.

I suggest a reading of Miller.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

"Here's my take. Looking at original intent, the Founders knew what arms where, and also knew what artillery was. The right guaranteed was to arms, not artillery. So when someone asks if the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to a missle or an attack helicopter, the answer is that the guarantee ends at arms."

So the "Arms Control and Disarmament" agency should quit thinking about nuclear weapons and focus on handguns?

--Boris

"This means that your .380 Astra is probably not protected, but your AR-15 is."

If this was used for military purposes in WWII:

Then your .380 should be.

Imagine a soldier who has just escaped from a prison camp behind enemy lines. Would a loaded .380 pistol he finds be of any military utility to him, or would be just pass it by, hoping for a real military gun to fall into his hands?

All functional weapons have military utility.

I don't see how you arive at such a narrow definiton of (military) arms since you are correct in your reading of Miller. Weapons of mass destruction such as war ships were often privitaly owned in those days. The use of the word "bear" rather than "carry" includes larger arms such as those that would be bourne by horses or ships.