On 10/17/03 2:26 PM, "Peter Boucher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You seem to be referring to this paragraph:
> "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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.)
> 154, 158."
>
>
> The actual words of the Court clearly state that the question being
> considered is whether the Second Amendment applies to a particular type
> of weapon (i.e., whether "the Second Amendment guarantees the right to
> keep and bear such an instrument").
Hmmm. I'm not sure I'd characterize that as being "clearly" stated. Your
series of questions properly address whether the meaning was intended to be
a general one about the weapon or a specific one about either the defendant
and/or the particular action with which he was charged. In my opinion, it is
genuinely ambiguous.
>
> Are you reading out of the text of the paragraph something that is
> present (i.e., the second sentence's clarification that what they are
> looking for is evidence about whether "this weapon is any part of the
> ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
> common defense")?
I think it is erroneous to assume that the second sentence is a
"clarification" of the first. They could easily be addressing different
parts of the problem. That is, the court could be trying to say essentially
this:
"We don't know whether the defendant's use of possession of a short-barreled
shotgun has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well-regulated militia. In part, this is because we don't know whether
this kind of weapon could be useful in a militia setting."
Do you think that roughly that construction is impossible? (I'm considering
here only this paragraph itself--not other aids to construction, such as its
placement within the opinion, what other cases are cited, etc. Just the
text, ma'am.)
--
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
