On 10/17/03 12:46 PM, "Robert J. Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't agree with this line of analysis regarding Miller (fallback position
> etc.). As the court said in its decision, Miller's action (carrying a
> sawed-off shotgun across state lines) was not protected under the Second
> Amendment because there was no evidence that his action "has some reasonable
> relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
In your view, what would Miller (had he appeared) have had to prove in order
to overcome the court's reticence here? Would it have been sufficient for
him to demonstrate that shotguns generally, or short-barrelled shotguns
specifically, could reasonably contribute to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia? Or would he have had to show that a person
carrying such a weapon across state lines contributed to the preservation of
the militia? Or would his burden have been to show that his own possession
or use of the weapon in question would reasonably be related to the
preservation of a militia?
If either of the last two options, would such a showing also have required
that Miller prove himself to be a member of the militia at the time of the
action for which he was charged?
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and
car keys to teenage boys.
--P.J. O'Rourke
