If the conviction was upheld, doesn't that make all the talk about rejecting collective rights and sophisticated collective rights dicta , not the holding in the case ?
Charles
From: "jared"
Andie wrote:
"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."
Not quite true anymore. Leave it to the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana):
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller."--United States v. Emerson, Oct. 16, 2001.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no> =9910331cr0
Certiorari was denied. The court went on to state that even though the 2nd Amendment provides the individual right to keep and bear arms, that right is "subject to...limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country." So the regulations were "reasonable," and Emerson remained convicted. I'm pretty sure the Court knew that had it reversed Emerson's conviction, the Supreme Court would have accepted cert. This way, they got the precedent on the books without having it immediately reversed.
--Jared