Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The 2nd amendment (one more time) Message-ID: <284@topaz.ARPA> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 03:31:15 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.284 Posted: Wed Jan 16 03:31:15 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 00:38:10 EST References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <2504@CSL-Vax.ARPA> <> <288@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <> <302@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 57 > >> = Jeff Shallit > Let me quote from an "amicus curiae" brief, prepared by experts on the > Constitution, and constitutional history: > Prepared by BIASED experts etc. I'm sure that you could find, if you cared to look for them, briefs by similar experts to the opposite conclusion. I've run across an analysis done by a subcomittee of the Senate Justice Committee on the issue which you might read. > [United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)] If I recall correctly, Miller was decided by default, only the Justice Department showing up. Arguments for Miller's side were never made. The case was over whether a sawed-off shotgun was a military weapon. The SC, in ignorance of the fact that US forces had used 30,000 sawed-off shotguns in wwI (and more in wwII, afterward), and in the absence of any defensive arguments, held for the US. (I believe that today Miller would have had counsel appointed (under Gideon).) > "The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia ... You seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) weren't part of the Constitution they drafted. The rest of your "analysis" seems merely to be a description of the status quo, which I agreed beforehand was as such. I claim that in current interpretation, four of the Bill of Rights are dead letters: amendments 2,6,9, and 10 (only one word of 6, namely "speedy"). > > >I think you'll find that > >the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is *more moderate* > >than a literal reading of the words. > > This idea is ludicrous, if one reads carefully the analysis above. I said "literal reading" and you talk about historical interpretation. You don't understand plain English (are you a lawyer?). > It amazes me that most posters seem to believe they are more > qualified to interpret the constitution than experts ... There is a difference between being qualified in a technical subject and in legal interpretation. In what technical subject can one get a "doctorate" in two years? In what other profession would someone comparable to a SC justice publicly say that half its practitioners were incompetent or superfluous? What profession has the lowest regard among the general public (with the possible exception of politicians)? If you were really knowlegeable about law, you would realize that the "open texture" of legal interpretation leaves no room for the sort of airtight exegesis of the second amendment as you have been pretending. --JoSH