USSC: Miller, 1939. Cited often, never reversed. qed.

Post #91,814 by mmoffitt 3/26/03 11:38:45 AM 3/26/03 11:39:26 AM Reply	USSC: Miller, 1939. Cited often, never reversed. qed. [Edit]: Mistakenly put "v." in instead of ":" bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said? Edited by mmoffitt March 26, 2003, 11:39:26 AM EST USSC v. Miller, 1939. Cited often, never reversed. qed. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said? Collapse All History
Post #91,821 by cwbrenn 3/26/03 11:51:54 AM Reply	Good for them As an american citizen, I am entitled to disagree with the United States Supreme Court. Which I do. I also disagreed with the Dred Scott decision. Go figure. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #91,823 by mmoffitt 3/26/03 11:57:58 AM Reply	Yes, and you're free to disagree with The Constitution. :-) Actually, you don't have to. It's not that there is a prohibition against private ownership of firearms, it's just that Amendment II doesn't speak to private ownership. The only time this would ever come up is in the extraordinarily unlikely event that the Congress passes a law banning private ownership. Unless the USSC wanted to reverse the precedent of Miller and at least two other cases I can think of off the top of my head subsequent to Miller (an unlikely, but not impossible track for them to take), it would rule the private ownership ban Constitutional. Then you'd have something to bitch about :-) bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #91,825 by cwbrenn 3/26/03 12:03:13 PM Reply	... I'm really not interested in debating about this right at the moment. My reason for not wanting Moore in the White House is because he and I (and, apparently, you and I) disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. That's all I was saying. I think it's best we leave the rest of this discussion for another day. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #91,831 by mmoffitt 3/26/03 12:14:37 PM Reply	I don't think we need another day, but thanks. I've had this debate a bunch and I don't know if I've ever seen anyone change their position. The USSC interprets The Constitution, if you understand that, you understand that Amendment 2 is not about private ownership (here I leave out the typical argument that "if you can read..."). If you're a gun owner, you "will it" to apply to private ownership. No amount of reasoning will change anyone with such a view - it's an emotional issue with them, they hear some one wanting to take away one of their toys. Conversely, people familiar with the context and case law cannot accept that Amendment 2 applies to something that it doesn't. So, they too, are immoveable. I wouldn't have gone this far except in these days when The Constitution is being shred willy-nilly and with barely a peep from the Murican People, my dander gets a little up when I see a reference to this old misrepresentation. Enjoy shooting, or killing, or whatever trips your trigger. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #91,830 by cwbrenn 3/26/03 12:11:01 PM Reply	Sheesh. /me is dumb I completely misread the title of your post, which sorta changed the way I read the body of your post. Bad me, apologies to you, I shouldn't have been as abrupt as I was... gah. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #91,832 by mmoffitt 3/26/03 12:15:06 PM Reply	Me 2! Apologies! bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?

Welcome to IWETHEY!