guns & purses (was Re: guns & crime)

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

No, it's not controversial. It's what the Supreme Court says. See United 
States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). People can say what they like in the 
journals, but we in the courts (I am a law clerk to a federal judge) are 
bound by what the Court says. There is a story about Scalia and some law 
prof. She was criticizing some opinion he wrote as wrong. He concluded by 
saying, there is one difference between us. Yes, she said? He said, I am on 
the Supreme Court, and you are not. It's very likely I don't read enough law 
journals, most  of them aren't worth reading. I speak as former editor of a 
good one. I read case law and philosophy. --jks

In a message dated Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:33:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jordan 
Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> writes:

<< > And from a legal professional's point of view, the 2d A doesn't
> guarantee a private citizen's right to bear arms outside the
> context of the National Guard. --jks

Surely then you must know that this opinion of yours is controversial
to say the least.  I'd say that if you're a legal professional and
you believe this to be true that you aren't reading enough journals.

I believe it's presently, from a legal perspective, unanaswered
whether the 2nd is an individual or state right.  Incredible as it
may seem, it's possible that "the people" means something different
in the 2nd than it does in the 1st and the 4th.

And besides: the Bill of Rights doesn't "guarantee" anything: it
merely recognizes the rights listed.

/jordan

 >>