Questions three or four. RS Robert J. Spitzer, Ph.D. Distinguished Service Professor Political Science Department SUNY Cortland Box 2000 Cortland, NY 13045 voice: 607-753-4106 FAX: 607-753-5760 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.cortland.edu/polsci/home.html>
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reinsert eyeballs 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
