The point.

Post #33,518 by mmoffitt 3/26/02 4:19:04 PM Reply	The point. Is that regardless of how illegitmate I think some of the USSC's decisions were, they do tend to correct themselves over time when they make a mistake. At least two other cases have been heard on this issue and the USSC did not reverse Miller. And notwithstanding what anyone thinks, the USSC is the accepted authority on the interpretation of the Constitution. I don't give a tinker's damn if every household in the US has a working gun in it. I do not submit that private ownership of firearms is illegal in the US. I do not hold that a US citizen, without a felony conviction, does not have a right to own a firearm. Hell, I own a firearm myself! What I do detest is the position that the Constitution guarantees the right of private ownership of firearms. It simply doesn't.
Post #33,532 by boxley 3/26/02 5:17:43 PM Reply	they will correct the 2nd amendment mistakes Just a matter of time. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #33,604 by mmoffitt 3/27/02 12:20:29 PM Reply	Write your Congressman. It would be interesting to see what would happen if an Amendment guaranteeing the right of private ownership of firearms was offered. My guess is that the NRA would fight it - claiming (falsely) that Amendment 2 already guaranteed that right. The interesting part would be to see how many states would approve. And the fallout if not enough of them did sign on.
Post #33,617 by boxley 3/27/02 1:20:40 PM Reply	the second ammendment already covers private ownership a clear reading states that. Checking into the founding fathers writings states that. Now declaring private ownership doesnt stop the feds from regulating what types of weapons may be privately owned in the sense of public order criminals can and should be barred from owning weapons. Certain weapons can be classified as requiring extra management such as fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns and recoiless large caliber rifles such as the 105mm those items require a BAFT license. Stating that only state militias are guarrantied firearms is only reading 1/2 of the ammendment. To have one (militia) you MUST have the other unabridged individual right to own firearms. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #33,647 by mmoffitt 3/27/02 5:09:25 PM Reply	Read more carefully. The gun has to have some reasonable relationship to the State's militia. If you buy a gun to hunt or shoot cans with, Amendment 2 does NOT apply.
Post #33,691 by boxley 3/28/02 8:57:58 AM Reply	you read more carefully there is two separate but equal statements that can stand alone, both equally apply. I guess we will agree to disagree. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #33,693 by mmoffitt 3/28/02 9:07:14 AM Reply	I'm gonna try for the last word on this ;-) >> there is two separate but equal statements that can stand alone, >> both equally apply. No. There is one statement, one sentence. The first part places the "right" in its context (see USSC decisions above). Now IF there were two statements, two sentences, two amendments, then non-State militia firearm ownership would be a Constitutional right. But there aren't and so there isn't. We will disgree. I'll concede your right to be wrong. ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!