True enough, US v. Miller (1939?) was the last real 2-A case and it upheld a law regulating (not banning) sawed-off shotguns as not being inconsistent with 2-A.
>
> There are arguments pro and con on guns and gun control
> based on non-SC interpretations of the Constitution, but
> none of these arguments are valid until the Supreme Court
> says so.
Trivially true enough ...
> It's interesting that Harpers presents the gun nuts
> legalistic interpretation as valid if that's what it did.
> IMO, that is unscholarly. It is not a decided question.
I've not yet read the piece, but the anti-gun crew tends to be a little disingenous. You see all the nice, 'moderate' politicos like, say Clinton (or here in Texas Ann, Richards) try to blunt criticism of gun control laws, because 'hunters' and 'sportspeople' will not be prevented from owning their sporting weapons. But that just dodges the quite real and honest political question: what weapons does 2-A protect? There is not a constitutional right to hunt or to terget shoot. 2-A specifically refers to "securing a free state" and militia was construed to be all the (white) men (not *people*) of the country.
Further, as little as the Supremes have decided much 2-A law, one concept that has had some support is that 2-A protects plain old militia type weapons. This would seem to indicate that an AK-47 should enjoy more protection than a (less menacing) .22 rifle. It is some sort of *political* right that is being protected, not a right to the leisure activity of your choice.
Anyway, my unclear, undecided, thoughts and my question remains: should leftists assert the right to the tangible tools of every previous revolution?
--
Joseph Noonan jfn1 at msc.com