WeikuBoy: “The dirty little secret of the gun debate is that the 2A doesn't stand in the way of gun control.”

Xanthro: "The Second Amendment doesn’t stand in the way of all Gun Control, but it would stand in the way of some Gun Control. If a State tried to ban the possessions of pistols or rifles as a whole, then this would be unconstitutional."

If that's YOUR opinion, Xanthro, fine; whatever. You are wrong, of course; but you are entitled to say it, just as you're entitled to say there were WMD in Iraq, or Santa Claus exists. But if you're saying it's the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, then prove it. Cite the case. Quote the language. Cite a modern (post-Miller) case that is actually about the 2A. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, which, though wrong and baseless, you're entitled to.

Xanthro: "One case, Emerson, since the 1800s has the Second Amendment been used as the prime reason to overturn a gun control law. When know that case, then ask for other cases without specifying Second Amendment protection, you deliberately make it seem that Gun Control laws have not be found unconstitutional on any grounds."

WeikuBoy's Response: The Emerson case didn't overturn a gun control law. It merely talked about the 2A in the gun lobby's preferred way of talking about the 2A. As near as I can tell, no case has ever overturned a gun control law on 2A grounds, and certainly none has done so since the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in the Miller case.

Translation into Xanthroese: "Emerson case has the gun control law not overturned. When know that case better about talk of irrelevant cases on other grounds."

------------------------------------------------------------

Xanthro: "You were wrong on Miller, as you now admit that Miller is about the instrument and not about who wields said instrument."

WeikuBoy: The Miller case involved a sawed-off shotgun transported by Mr. Miller across state lines in violation of federal law. Miller's status (adult civilian; not an infant, insane, incarcerated, etc.) was not an issue. The court held that his right to keep and bear such a weapon required a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Translation into Xanthroese: "Case about citizen no right wield such instrument."

------------------------------------------------------------

Xanthro: "You had not even read Miller when this discussion began, as is clear by your complete lack of knowledge of the case, yet you copied and pasted excepts lifted from GunLawsuits.org with an authority you lacked."

WeikuBoy: It had been probably three or four years since I'd last read Miller. I did reread it yesterday, and was struck by its brevity (gotta love the brevity of the pre-word processor era) but otherwise found it as I'd remembered it.

------------------------------------------------------------

Xanthro: "You then tried to claim that Miller ruled that a State's laws limited what arms found Second Amendment protection, but to paraphrase you, how embarrassing for you that you did not even know what State Miller was in. Unless even more embarrassing you think that New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts are the same State."

WeikuBoy: That is what the Miller case held. The court looked to state law to see if there was any militia-related reason that might call the 2A into question and protect Miller's "right" to a sawed-off shotgun. The court looked at several colonial-era statutes, and concluded that Miller's firearm bore no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." I don't know why the court only looked at colonial-era statutes. My guess is that the two states involved in Miller's crime, OK and AR, had nothing on their books requiring their citizens to maintain any weapons for militia purposes, so the court looked beyond those two states.

----------------------------------------------------------

Xanthro: "Cite one Supreme Court decision that even tangentially States that Second Amendment Protection is not an individual right."

WeikuBoy: The Miller case, just discussed, said that Miller's "right" to his weapon must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Since the Miller case was decided in 1939, all nine or ten of the dozen federal appeals courts have found the 2A protection is not an individual right. (The 5th Circuit recently indicated that it might find otherwise.) See Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996) ("the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.")

------------------------------------------------------

Xanthro: "UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ went out of it's way to affirm it's an individual right."

WeikuBoy: No, it did not. Verdugo-Urquidez was not a 2A case, nor did it so find.

-------------------------------------------------------

Xanthro: "That's what this argument is about, whether or not Second Amendment protection is for the individual or a collective right."

WeikuBoy: Yes. And my contention is that as far as I can tell NO CASE HAS EVER STRUCK DOWN A GUN CONTROL LAW ON 2A GROUNDS, and certainly not in the modern post-Miller era. And you have already confessed that except for Emerson (which found against the gun owner and struck down no law on 2A grounds) no case has discovered such an individual right. Which was all I wanted from you. You are free to shout all day long that it is your opinion that the 2A protects the rights of individuals to guns and not the rights of states to well-regulated militias. But the law does not support you, and it is wrong of you to try to mislead Salon's readers, just as the gun lobby has misled America on this for so long.