From: [d--ar--y] at [indirect.com] (David T. Hardy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Well-regulated, what it meant
Date: 17 Jun 1996 00:44:38 GMT

In article <[jerry 1606961202300001] at [nspace.cts.com]>
[j--r--y] at [acusd.edu] (Jerry Stratton) writes:

> It's a bit of a strange case. The Supremes go into great detail about how
> Miller was in fact a member of the militia, then at the very end say that
> only military weapons are protected for use by able-bodied males. Since
> neither Miller nor his attorneys were there to say, "yes, this *is* a
> military weapon", they sent the case back.

A bit more complex; Supreme Court doesn't take evidence, except in
original jurisdiction cases; it relies on the record developed in the
lower court. Since the lower court took *no* evidence, the only
solution was to remand the case to it, with instructions (clear, or by
inference) on what sort of evidence it should obtain.

Miller, was BTW, written by Justice McReynolds, probably the most
obnoxious man ever to sit on the court. (When Felix Frankfurter, one of
the top legal minds in the country, was appointed, McReynolds moved his
chambers because he "didn't want to be next to that hebe." One justice,
thinking maybe McReynolds was just misunderstood, tried to strike up a
conversation with "that was certainly a boring argument," which
McReynolds replied "The only thing more boring is listening to you read
your opinions." Then, when he died, he left all his money to a
foundation for foreign war orphans... probably just as a prank to
confuse us!)
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm not an attorney; I'm just) [d--ar--y] at [indirect.com] <David T. Hardy>
morally-challenged.          )  http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy
                             )____________________________________