Monday, November 12, 2007

New York Times' Linda Greenhouse on gun control:
Dear Ms. Stewart - There are probably as many ways to read US v. Miller as
there are opinions on gun control. I've read the opinion several times and
I'll stick to my interpretation, based on this sentence in the opinion: "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." Best wishes, LG

At 11:11 AM 11/12/2007, you wrote:
>Dear Ms. Greenhouse, You wrote, in the IHT, "A decision in 1939, United
>States v. Miller, held that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the "arms"
>to which the Second Amendment referred...." That's not actually quite
>accurate. Miller held that no evidentiary hearing had yet been held in the
>case, to establish whether a sawed off shotgun was a militia weapon, and
>that therefore the dismissal was premature.

Supreme Court May Take Gun Case
Published: November 12, 2007
Justices will be asked to interpret the right to “keep and bear arms” if the court weighs in on Washington’s strict gun-control law.

(0) comments <$BlogCommentDeleteIcon$>
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?