From the Letters to the editor, Thursday, April 11, 1996, San Diego Union-Tribune:

No constitutional right to own or carry a gun

There is a big lie circulating among us that ranks right up there with
"Of course I'll marry you," and "The check is in the mail" in
frequency and falsehood. This new lie is repeated whenever gun-toters
and their advocates wrap the American flag around their bloody
weapons. It goes something like this:

"The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every citizen the
right to own and carry handguns and assault weapons."

This lie is the National Rifle Association's mantra, and its wide
public acceptance confirms Mark Twain's maxim: "Repeat a lie often
enough and most people will believe it."

The truth is that there is no such right! As far back as 1939, the
United States Supreme Court, in the case of the U.S. vs. Miller, held
that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" does not apply to
private citizens, but to members of a state's national guard.

Since the Miller case decision, no federal court has ever supported
the NRA's claim. More recently, in 1982, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals held, in the case of City of Morton Grove, Ill, that the
city's ban on handguns was constitutional because: "The Second
Amendment does not apply within the states to give individuals the
right to own or possess firearms."

The NRA and their debtors in Contress have long known about these
court decisions, yet continue marketing the lie to all who might be
persuaded. It was by such methods that a generation of Germans was led
to believe that Jews were national enemies.

ROBERT L. SIMMONS, law professor, University of San Diego

===End Quote

Since "The San Diego Union Tribune welcomes letters to the editor", I have sent the following reply. I also enclosed a copy of Miller so that they might easily check my quotes.

Letters Editor
The San Diego Union-Tribune
Post Office Box 191
San Diego, CA 92112-4106

Professor Robert Simmons (No constitutional right to own or carry a
gun, Letters, 4-11-96, B13) has obviously never read the Supreme Court
case he misquoted. US v. Miller claimed that the second amendment
obviously *does* apply to individuals:

     "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
      debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
      and States, and the writings of approved commentators.  These show
      plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
      capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

     "the militia system implied the general obligation of all adult male
      inhabitants to possess arms"

The case hinged on whether or not Miller's weapon was a military
weapon. The court asked Miller’s attorneys to show that Miller’s sawed
off shotgun could have a military purpose. Miller’s attorneys did not
do so. Miller had no attorneys: he was dead. When US v. Miller states
that the shotgun's military usefulness is "not within judicial
notice", it means literally that no one pointed out that such weapons
were still used in the military.

That's right: according to US v. Miller, the second amendment is about
military weapons: any weapon that is "part of the ordinary military
equipment or… could contribute to the common defense".

No need to take my word for it. Anyone on the net can go a step
further than Professor Simmons and actually read the case in question.
Go to the Internet site gopher://nspace.cts.com/. Follow "Firearms",
"Government", "Courts", and then "U.S. Supreme Court". Or,
http://nspace.cts.com/html/Politics/Firearms/. Or e-mail
[f t p] at [nspace.cts.com] with the message:

   get Firearms/Government/Courts/U.S. Supreme Court/US v. Miller

Jerry Stratton
[j--r--y] at [nspace.cts.com]

=== End reply