"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote in message
...

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is
generating more interest then anything else going on in this newsgroup
right now. That's the First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then
exercise your own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just
ignoring this thread.


William Noble wrote:

doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT
subject degenerates into a pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have
something better with which to occupy your synapses?
"

True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms
in the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a right belonging to
a "well regulated militia" or to members of a militia.

Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated
militia".

I guess its only a matter of time before someone says "Because the good
lord made it so", and we are then allowed to let this thread die...
'alf a mo'. I just did say it. Can we stop now?

Eh, the courts have NOT consistently held that it's an individual right.
Just the opposite, in fact.

However, the issue is up for grabs again. Within this decade two Circuit
Courts of Appeals have reached opposite conclusions on this issue, one that
supports the individual right (Fifth Circuit, United States v. Emerson, 270
F.3d 203) and one that denies it (Ninth Circuit, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F.3d 1052). This conflict puts pressure on the Supreme Court to finally
decide the issue, but don't count your chickens. It may be very difficult to
find a test case.

FWIW, the issue has been brewing in the highest reaches of legal theorizing
since the publication, in the Yale Law Review, of Sanford Levinson's
article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" (1989). The article is widely
available online for anyone who's interested.

Laurence Tribe (the most famous liberal legal scholar) caused a furor a few
years by swinging, to a large degree, to the individual-rights position. It
is an extremely hot issue in legal scholarship today, part of a broader
turmoil of re-thinking various rights issues.

--
Ed Huntress