On 10/17/03 8:47 PM, "Peter Boucher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Evidence about the militia utility of Jack Miller's actions and
> motives cannot be used to justify a blanket statement about whether "the
> Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear [a 'shotgun
> having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length']."
I understand your objection. It would have been more clear if, in my
hypothetical rephrasing of what the SC might have meant, I had used
something like "the 2A guarantees Jack Miller's right to keep and bear...."
That is, I don't think it's necessarily the case that the phrase "the right"
here means "a blanket statement" about what the 2A guarantees. It could be
that the court meant that to be as particularized to the case before it as
the other clause.
Mind you, I'm not saying this is what the court meant. In fact, I think the
more likely reading is that it is, indeed, the weapon type that is the focus
of this paragraph, rather than Miller's particular weapon or what,
specifically, he did with it, or might have done with it had he been a
militia member. But I don't think Mr. Spitzer's reading is an implausible
exegesis on its face. I hope, though, that he'll answer my question about
whether, as he sees it, his understanding of the paragraph means that Miller
would also have had to establish that he was a militia member. Obviously the
opinion reveals no interest in that question, which would be odd if the
court had the highly particularized view that I'm understanding Mr. Spitzer
to be arguing for.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I
don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
-- John Wayne, as J.B. Books, in "The Shootist" (1976)
