Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> I believe past supreme court decisions were that the
> right to firearms was collective for militias and thus
> allowed more restrictions than will be if they decide
> in this case that it is an individual right.

Not exactly.  The 1939 case involved a sawed off shotgun.  The supreme court 
(as they have for our entire history) sidestepped the issue.  They ruled that 
prohibition against sawed off shotguns could be upheld since it is clearly 
not 
a weapon usable as a military weapon.

What the court in essence said was that an *individual* had a right to 
military style weapons, leaving open the interpretation that they could 
possess them 
whether they were in a militia or not.

Very fortunately, based on the comments from the court so far, they are 
viewing the 2nd as an individual right.  And from the viewpoint of this 
backwater 
heathen, any other view is moronic ... or at least moot.   </HTML>