-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan, Adding just a bit to my previous tome. Beginning with Cases v. United States in 1942, the court system conducted a steady degradation of the Second Amendment that was often based on misinterpretations of the Miller case. Each time the Miller opinion was distorted by a lower court, the new opinion became part of case law and made it easier for the next case to further erode Second Amendment protections. Law schools ignored the Second Amendment, because it was not politically correct. Students were told that it was not worthy of study, as it applied only to the obsolete right of states to form militias. The few idealistic lawyers who challenged the prevailing view quickly discovered that this was not a smart career move. It was not until the 1990's that legal scholars began to conduct serious research into the intent of the Second Amendment. The overwhelming majority has concluded that it does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

From Cases v. U.S. http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html [Notice how the court decides that a literal interpretation of the 2nd is abhorent to federal hegemony and therefore the framers could not (and in speaking for them we will not say) that they meant this despite considerable evidence to the contrary.]

==================================== The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under the Second Amendment which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right. <snip> <references to the Miller decision> "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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. <Of course not, for then our hands would be tied> The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. <Exactly> In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. <Now we are talking> Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. <Except to overthrow the government should it become necessary> It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result. <i.e., we don't like the direction a plain reading is leading us> Considering the many variable factors bearing upon the question it seems to us impossible to formulate any general test by which to determine the limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each case under it, like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its own facts and the line between what is and what is not a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the other of the line. ======================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.0 wmAEARECACAFAjuYRXIZHGtleXNlci1zb3plQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAg4ui5IoBV n6vWAKCv2Fz8bve4Ju39dIu7MFzstyUuxACdGYWlr0oSGj+2ksHERRb95hBRC+I= =ESVT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----