The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/30309836.aspx

Subject:  Re: Gun confiscation or cancer? Which to fear mo Date:  10/9/2012  8:01 PM
Author:  1poorguy Number:  1822741 of 1956712

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


That's not supporting your case.

And "common use at that time" is when? When the 2nd Amendment was drafted? That means only flintlocks. Or in 1939? Which would be bolt-action rifles, mostly. Though there was the tommy-gun (very popular with gangsters in that era). A weapon can only be in "common use" if it is legal in the first place. The decision in Heller clearly states that they are not saying the right is unrestricted, and further is specific that the handgun ban in DC was not legal, and that Heller could have one in his home.

So that's not really supporting your position either.

My mother owns a pistol. I would be most vociferous of any attempts to make it illegal. Somewhere between that and weapons with large-capacity magazines and high rates of fire we cross a line, IMO.
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us