Robert,
Can we take your silence to mean that you don't hold that the Miller case was about the actions of the individual but rather about the type of firearm in question?
-Gene
Gene Hoffman on 10/20/2003 wrote:
You stated:
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."
The court said:
"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."
I find your characterization of the court's decision to be about Miller's action to be in direct conflict with the declarative, "the instrument." Your quote seems selective and misleading and I would like to understand - as would the other questioners - how you construct "action" where I read "instrument."
-Gene Hoffman
Robert J. Spitzer wrote:
Sorry, I'm not following this. RS
