Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,nj.politics,ne.politics,tx.politics
From: [anonymous remailer] at [replay.com] (Name withheld on request)
Subject: US v. Lewis - Doesn't Deny RTKBA
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 17:07:30 +0000

 -=> Quoting Eric Williams to All <=-

 : The woman sited a 1980 Supreme Court case: US vs Lewis, saying that
 : this case said there was "no individual RKBA". Anybody have a
 : citation for this handy?

 EW> Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980).  Lewis recognized
 EW> -- in  summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second
 EW> Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does
 EW> not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
 EW> efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that
 EW> Miller had focused upon the type of firearm.  Further, Lewis was
 EW> concerned only with  whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime
 EW> Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession
 EW> of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in
 EW> 1986) violated the Second Amendment.  Thus, since convicted felons
 EW> historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous
 EW> fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote,
 EW> hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the
 EW> Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of
 EW> firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon
 EW> constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any
 EW> constitutionally protected liberties."

Thank you!  This is just as I suspected:  A weird spin on _US v.
Miller_, in itself a frequently misunderstood and pretty bizarre case
that is often posed as "proof" of no personal RTKBA by anti-gunners.
Actually, it makes a good case for knocking down "assault weapon" bans,
if it does anything at all.  Neither of these for an instant denies the
individual RTKBA.

There are no limits to the lies the anti-gunners will make about the
meaning of the Second Amendment.

One question:  Was the above dicta or part of the ruling?