Second Amendment Interpretation
is Far From Settled
From: Tom Glass <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:30:08 -0500
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Second Amendment Interpretation is Far From Settled
This was in response to the Austin
American-Statesman editorial on Monday, Oct 22, 2001. The URL on
KeepAndBearArms.com
is now outdated. The current URL is:
http://www.austin360.com/auto_docs/epaper/editions/monday/editorial_2.html
The guidelines state for letters
to the American-Statesman limit letters to 150 words. This letter has exactly
150 words.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Glass [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:41 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Second Amendment Interpretation is Far From Settled
Editor:
To say that the Second Amendment
is a "quintessential example" of "settled constitutional law"
as the aptly named Carl Bogus is quoted, is far off the mark.
The Supreme Court has ruled on only
one substantive case on the Second Amendment since 1934 - U.S. v. Miller (1939).
In that case, a suspected moonshiner's release by a District judge from a non-payment
of a transfer tax for a sawed off shotgun was overturned. The high court's stated
reason was, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a ... (sawed off shotgun) ... at this time has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say
that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Clearly, the implication is that
weapons used by the military WOULD have been protected by the Second Amendment.
Toward liberty,
Tom Glass
Houston, Texas
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
