[117214] in Cypherpunks
Re: IP: Case Could Shape Future of Gun Control
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Sat Aug 28 13:37:02 1999
Message-Id: <4.1.19990828101541.0096de50@popserver.com21.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 10:17:34 -0700
To: Mark Atwood <mra@pobox.com>, Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
From: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <m3so55f33y.fsf@flash.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
At 12:14 PM 8/27/99 -0700, Mark Atwood wrote:
>Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com> writes:
>> "That's the logic of (Oklahoma City bomber) Timothy McVeigh," Henigan
>> says. The framers of the Constitution "couldn't have intended to
>> bestow a right to armed insurrection. That would have destroyed what
>> they were trying to build."
From my posting today to USA Today's Gun Legislation discussion forum:
Most or all gun regulations may soon be found unconstitutional. Richard
Willing's August 27th piece, "Case
could shape future of gun control," does good but somewhat biased job of
laying out the facts.
Those that support gun control have conststantly maintained that no right
to private ownwership exists. Mr.
Willig's article states, "For the first time, a federal judge has ruled
that the Second Amendment guarantees
an individual's right to own a gun," but the courts have consistantly
allowed private citizens to challenge gun
restrictions. This is significant because courts routinely determine
"standing" before allowing cases to
proceed. The fact that citizens can bring suit already implied a right
existed.
The real test will come when the lower courts are forced to embrace a full
reading of the Supreme Court
decision in Miller vs. US
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/307us174.html Something they have
refused,
for political reasons, to do.
In Miller, Justice McReynolds' majority opinion emphasized that only
weapons with "... some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia" are protected. Miller can be read to
support some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments, e.g., that
the individual citizen has a right to
keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are
clearly relevant to modern
warfare, including, of course, assault weapons. Arguments about the
constitutional legitimacy of a prohibition
by Congress of private ownership of handguns or, what is much more likely,
assault rifles, might turn on the
usefulness of such guns in military settings.
For further information see:
http://www.nraila.org/research/19990804-BillofRightsCivilRights-003.html
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/embar.html
--Steve
