[Magdalen] right to bear arms

[Charles Wohlers]

Beat me to it. Up until the current Supreme Court ruled in a case from 
Chicago several years ago, it had always assumed that the 2nd Amendment 
meant that the states had a right to form militias - i. e., the National 
Guard.

I was also thinking that, since certain of the Supreme Court justices were 
very big on "original intent", perhaps the right to bear arms should be 
limited to those weapons which the original authors were familiar with - 
that is, flintlocks, muzzleloaders, etc.


Chad Wohlers
Woodbury, VT USA
chadwohl at satucket.com



-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Guthrie
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 10:51 AM
To: magdalen at herberthouse.org
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] right to bear arms

From: M J _Mike_ Logsdon

>I've been wondering why, all during these decades of gun control debate, no 
>one, NO ONE, in authority on any level has made a really huge deal about 
>how
> >the 2nd Amendment speaks NOTHING to the right of individuals NOT in 
> >relation
>to a well-regulated militia to own firearms freely and without restriction.

Well, maybe except the Supreme Court in the (IIRC) Heller decision where the
Republican majority ruled that the "well regulated militia" part had nothing 
to
do with the individuals right to bear automatic weapons to perform terrorist
acts.

Cheers,
Jim