[lbo-talk] 2d Amendment/Rule of Law (Was: The curse of literacy)

[Jordan Hayes]

> I don't know from the legislative history. But when it
> comes to law, if the text is clear, I'm sort of a
> textualist.  Meaning that the law is what the text of
> the law says.

The law says that there are two militiae, the organized one and the
unorganized one.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Is that clear enough in the text?


> 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.

What about US vs. Emmerson in the 5th? [Counter that Parker's "this is
just dicta" elided for the sake of speedy postings] ...

I think that the Supremes haven't been asked since Miller, and I look
forward to someone stepping up to the plate sometime in the future with
a good case that makes them say something more useful than the text of
Miller.

/jordan