From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 42

In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>Consider a similar structure:
>>"A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a
>>free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not
>>be infringed."
>>
>>Now, does this mean only the electorate can keep and read books?  Does{
>>it mean only registered voters can keep and read books?  Does it mean 
>>only those who have voted can keep and read books?  Does it imply any
>>restrictions AT ALL on the right to keep and read books?
>
>But it would imply that the state had the right to regulate and enforce
>education.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.  There is a difference
between "the feds can mandate literacy" and "the feds can't interfere
with literacy/book possession".

>>As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already
>>ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v.
>>Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what 
>>the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back
>>as the Dred Scott case, in 1857.
>
>It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>was not a proper militia weapon. Therefore, US vs. Miller supports
>limited government regulation of firearms.

Actually, the Miller court did nothing of the kind.  It remanded
the case back to the trial court because the miller court didn't
know if the weapon in question was a militia weapon.  (Doesn't it
bother anyone that a major constitutional issue was taken up in
a case where there was no defense?  Miller had been released by
the appeals court and disappeared - only the govt was represented.)

We don't know what would have happened with the reasonable "all guns
are militia weapons" argument.

-andy
--
