Reply #29: The courts have in fac t interpreted the second amendment to secure an [View All]

individual right to keep and bear arms.

As I said earlier, Miller in fact won his case on second amendment grounds in the lower court, and the Supreme Court overturned on narrow grounds that the weapon was not of the type suitable, NOT that Mr Miller himself had NO individual right. The Supreme Court did not overturn the lower courts reasoning as to whether Mr. Miller had a second amendment claim.

Once again, it the Supreme Court had decided that Mr. Miller had no individual right regarding the second amendment, then they would have decided the case on the basis of standing as the Silveira court has done.



It has everything to do woth you.
Your argument is based on your own opinion that the second amendment is obselete. You then conclude that the right no longer exists. That is concise to the point of circularity.



Qualifying phrase? The Miller court refers to the two clauses of the second amendment as the "declaration and guarantee". It also speaks of the purpose fo the second amendment, but does not say that the only people who have a right to bear arms are those who are actually enrolled in the state militia. The Miller court presents a history of the militia in which every man was to supply his own weapon. There are no qualifications placed on the persons who have a right to keep and bear arms by the Miller court. Mr. Miller was not asked whether he met any qualifications.

Silveira goes further and rejects the Limited Individual Rights argument.