Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wonder Warthog
The Second Amendment makes no such distinction, and, in fact, (Miller decision) the Supreme Court has ruled that "military weapons" are specifically protected (i.e "weaposns suitable for use by a militia").

Obviously you are aware that several subsequent lower court rulings took exception to that view. In fact, the recent DC decision took exception to the collective view of Miller. But I suspect there is not one Republican candidate who would argue with Newt on his point. Nor would about 99% of Americans. The Constitution was not a suicide pact as has been said many times before.

Ultimately, the USSC will conclude either that the 2d Amendment is collective and that the National Guard satisfies its intent, thereby concluding no one outside of an authorized military has any right to a weapon, or that it is an individual right, but as with all other rights, have reasonable limitations permitting its inclusion into a free and safe society.

But in any case, that issue will ultimately be decided by the courts, not the president or Congress.

Newt just lost MY support, even for VP. He just sank to the same level as Guiliani, and for the same reason.

LOL. I doubt the 2d Amendment purists will have much of an influence on the upcoming election in any case.

20 posted on 03/29/2007 7:26:22 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: MACVSOG68
"LOL. I doubt the 2d Amendment purists will have much of an influence on the upcoming election in any case."

Tell that to Bill Clinton.

25 posted on 03/29/2007 1:39:59 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson