Replies

The problem is we are back to that "Militia" argument.

"A well regulated militia" is on it's face not an "unorganized militia." I realize that Presser v. Illinois, 1886, held that we are all members of a "reserve militia" and therefore the several states should not interfere with gun ownership.

But "Miller" SCOTUS, 1939 held that there is no constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun.

You can go several ways is reviewing Miller. Did the Court so decide because a sawed-off shotgun is not a weapon commonly used by an armed army/militia? (If so, then lots of guys walking point in RVN might disagree!)

Was their thinking that Miller was not a member of a "well regulated militia," therefore he had no constitutional right to posses that weapon, and perhaps any other?

One of my jobs as a lawyer/Investigative Reporter was to have viewers look beyond the instant case and see the practical applications of a law or decision.

Judges are not immune to reality or common sense (well......) so let's try to examine a possible reversal of Miller.

If being a member of a "reserve militia" is universal, as in Presser, then it is in fact universal without exception. Does it allow convicted child molesters to posses weapons so they can kidnap more children? Does it allow Al Quida members to camp outside my front door on a public street with a loaded 20mm mini-gun pointed at my bedroom? Does it allow visiting wives to bring pistols to their inmate husbands at a state prison?

It goes further. If all are members of a militia, then what was to stop a 2000 member ultra-liberal anarchist militia, called "Gore's Gator Garrison" from marching on Tallahassee or Washington to upset the 2000 Florida vote?

What would stop them? JimRob's Rebel Rifle Regiment?

Understand, I am very pro-gun. Have been a CCW holder / NRA Life Member since three days after I returned from second tour in RVN.

Unfortunately, as a conservative lawyer, I do see some problems with assuming we have an absolute constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. If the 2d amendment didn't have that "militia" clause, it would be much simpler.

The other amendments do not have such a qualification. The 1st Ammendment doesn't "open criticism of government is essential to proper operation of a Republic, therefore the right to free speech shall not be infringed." If it did, I could certainly criticize my local city commissioners, but what about my comments about the idiotic choices of the judges on "American Idol?"

As you can see, absolutist positions can be a very slippery slope.