I'll leave it to you to decide how any of this conforms to the variations and
permutations of the "standard model."
Bob Spitzer
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Boucher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 10/16/2003 2:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: reinsert eyeballs
"The descriptions and quotes below describe pretty well the militia
view -- i.e. that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear
arms in connection with citizen service in a government organized and
regulated militia."
My question was more about how either of those two papers could be
said to conflict with the Standard Model expounded by Rawle, Story,
Cooley, and the majority of modern scholars, than it was about asking
Prof. Spitzer to say that the "militia view" encompasses any
interpretation that mentions any connection at all to the militia.
Under this broad interpretation almost all Standard Model papers can be
said to "adopt the militia view," since Standard Modelers, such as the
1874 paper's authors, are nearly unanimous in their agreement that
weapons that are not normally used by soldiers are not the type of
"arms" referenced in the Second Amendment.
