guns & purses (was Re: guns & crime)

Wed Oct 18 12:29:59 PDT 2000

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> 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.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list