From JKSCHW at aol.com Wed Feb 9 10:21:26 2000
Here is the latest statement:
"Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred
in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83
L.Ed. 1206 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's
invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934.
In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not
guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun
because that weapon had not been shown to be 'ordinary
military equipment' that could 'contribute to the common
defense.'Id., at 178, 59 S.Ct., at 818. The Court did not,
however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the
substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."
I've always enjoyed the Miller case, because it seems to use logic that is at odds with the current trend in gun control legislation; namely, that what *would* likely be upheld is a claim similar to that in Miller but about an item that *could* be shown to be "ordinary military equipment that could contribute to the common defense" -- which these days means Public Enemy Numbers One (sic) (if you're anti-gun) a 9mm or .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol and/or a select-fire M-16 (of course full auto is a relatively non-issue, but the attempt at least in California to control them seems to be based on what they *look* like). The foreign equivalent, the dreaded and feared AK-47, also would fall squarely in that definition. Further, the weapon that Miller got arrested for in the first place (a short-barrelled shotgun) is a favorite weapon choice of both rapid response military units and most large urban police forces. The gap between what the citizen can do and what the government can do (the so-called "monopoly on violence") is widening.
/jordan