This article is from the December 1999 issue of "Guns & Ammo," page 21.
QOUTE:
The most recent and definitive Second Amendment ruling over the controversy of "states rights" versus "individual rights" can be found in U.S. v. Timothy Joe Emerson. Judge Sam Cummings for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division (CA No. 6:98-CR-103-C, decided 30 March 1999), found: "A textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms."
Judge Cummings takes an in-depth look at the constitutional right and its history including a debunk of the "collective right" argument: "Within the amendment are two distinct clauses, the first subordinate and the second independent." The first, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is dependent (cannot stand alone) and requires the second clause for clarification and to make a complete thought (sentence). The second clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is independent and can stand alone. "The function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected."
Note: To find and read the full text of this important and modern ruling the reader is urged to access the web site www.txnd.uscourts.gov If the site is difficult to connect to, try: www.findlaw.com then click on Judicial - U.S. District Courts - Texas/Northern District of Texas - notable cases.
END QOUTE
QOUTE:
The most recent and definitive Second Amendment ruling over the controversy of "states rights" versus "individual rights" can be found in U.S. v. Timothy Joe Emerson. Judge Sam Cummings for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division (CA No. 6:98-CR-103-C, decided 30 March 1999), found: "A textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms."
Judge Cummings takes an in-depth look at the constitutional right and its history including a debunk of the "collective right" argument: "Within the amendment are two distinct clauses, the first subordinate and the second independent." The first, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is dependent (cannot stand alone) and requires the second clause for clarification and to make a complete thought (sentence). The second clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is independent and can stand alone. "The function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected."
Note: To find and read the full text of this important and modern ruling the reader is urged to access the web site www.txnd.uscourts.gov If the site is difficult to connect to, try: www.findlaw.com then click on Judicial - U.S. District Courts - Texas/Northern District of Texas - notable cases.
END QOUTE
(Sorry, I learnt schoolboy French 30+ years ago -- and that's the first time I've ever been able to use it!! It's a bit like that other great French expression -- "son of fairy Ann" or something like that