Letters to the Editor
WeikuBoy
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 62
-
Gun Nut in Hole, Keeps Digging
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Xanthro, the Presser case is from 1886; and the quote you hang your hat on -- which is not relevant to that case or supported by legal authority -- merely states that just as the 2A limits the U.S. from interfering with well-regulated (i.e., state) militias, so the states cannot interfere with the U.S. "militia". It would be strange if the U.S. Army at Ft. Bliss, or the Texas National Guard, could not drill with M-16's because assault weapons were banned by the state of Texas. Nice try, I guess; but Miller is still the law of the land:
The right to keep and bear arms must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (1) "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A RIGHT HELD BY THE STATES, AND DOES NOT PROTECT THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN." (2)
(1) United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (The key U.S. S.Ct. 2A case)
(2) Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added)
+ Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 803 (2003)
-
Gun Nuts and Law like Pearls and Swine
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Xanthro, being right makes me right; and as long as posters here keep blathering about 2A rights that don't exist, I'm going to keep quoting the law of the land. Even a few who CARE about the plague of gun carnage in America do not appear to grasp that whatever rights you may have when it comes to guns, those rights do not come from the 2A.
You, on the other hand, exemplify the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So let me explain that cases later in time supersede (not "supercede") prior conflicting decisions; and there is a difference between a court's holding, on the one hand, versus words in passing concerning matters not relevant to the decision, on the other.
The Presser case from 1886 was not about the 2A, except to say that it was not about the 2A; and the quote you hang your hat on are words in passing (obiter dicta). Only in your fevered imagination is the court saying that every redneck must own and practice with a Tech-9 just in case the U.S. might someday need him to save us from space aliens.
Presser was not a 2A case; Miller was, and is in fact the most recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the 2A. It is the law of the land; it is still "in effect" (not "in affect"); and the quotes I've repeated are not taken out of context, and are directly related to the holding of Miller and the lower court decisions that rely on Miller. Thus:
The right to keep and bear arms must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (1) "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A RIGHT HELD BY THE STATES, AND DOES NOT PROTECT THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN." (2)
(1) United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (The key U.S. S.Ct. 2A case)
(2) Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added)
+ Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 803 (2003)
I'm still waiting for the "hundreds" if not "thousands" of "contrary" 2A decisions I've been promised.
-
Gun Nut Politics are Killing America
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Xanthro, let me get this straight: you're saying the U.S. Constitution, the most basic purpose of which is to rest the national defense with the U.S. government and not the states (except in emergencies), is somehow in conflict with the 2A -- the effect (not "affect") of which is to protect the power of states to have militias? Good luck with that! and when you succeed in getting a court to buy off on that argument, do let me know.
In the meantime, I'm only interested in what the courts say, not what the gun lobby thinks the law should be. Though I admit, seeing senile old Chuck Heston hold up a musket to the NRA and yell about his imaginary "2A rights" makes for great political theater. Unless, of course, like me you are bothered by the slaughter of school children and college students by yet another "law-abiding gun owner" gone 'round the bend.
And I appeal once more to Salon's readers: Do NOT be fooled by gun-lobby talking points. Don't take it from them, and don't take it from me; take it from the U.S. Supreme Court: The 2nd Amendment does NOT give citizens ANY gun rights, and is NOT an impediment to reasonable gun control laws. Which we really, really ought to try for a change in the U.S.
-
Viva China, Nomogen
[Read the article: From opium to outsourcing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't speak for Andrew, but please understand that for Asia/China/history geeks like me, the story of the Tatas is extremely interesting; and my reaction to their being back in Shanghai is simply an amazed, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." (My second thought was, I wonder if they managed to keep any property there throughout the 20th century, or better yet their connections? and my guess is "yes".)
Of course you are absolutely correct, that as far as opium is concerned the Noble House Brits were mainly responsible; but as a modern American ang moh, not only do I make no judgment about that, I raise my glass (scotch) to them all. Because they are history; yet they are the present, now more than ever. No disrespect to the Tatas was intended (quite the opposite, actually); and as far as your bottom line, that an economy with 8% growth will be attracted to one with 11% growth, I thought that was Andrew's point, too.