As for legislative history, to take as analogy, we know as well pretty much beyond a any doubt that the framers of the equal protection clause did not support, and i=did not intent the 14A to support, integration in schools or public accomomdations. But the text they would didn't say that, and though not crytal clear, is best interpreted as saying the opposition, that the equal ptotection of the laws applies throughout.
In addition, also more important than legislative history, is the history of interpetation -- precedent -- which is also law, unlike legislative history, In the almost 70 years since Miller, not one appeals court has deviated a hair from the collective rights interpretation.
So whiled the legislative history is inheresting history, it's not law and it's not legally relevant unless you need it to help you inderstand text that is cloudy because of open-ended drafted and lack of interpretation. We have neither here.
jks
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >As it presently interpreted by every federal
> Appeals
> >Court that has weighed in, under the authority of
> US
> >v. Miller (S.Ct 1937), the 2d Amendment does not
> give
> >private individuals a right to bear arms, but only
> in
> >the context of a "well-regulated militia." The
> courts
> >regularly dismiss law suits brought by right wing
> gun
> >nuts arguing the contrary.
>
> Dan Lazare had a piece in Harper's some years ago
> arguing that based
> on the legislative history, the pro-gun forces were
> right about the
> 2A. It's reprinted here:
>
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1793_299/ai_55881915>.
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail