[Referring to the Associated Press coverage of the U.S. Supreme 
 Court's refusal to hear Emerson and Haney.

 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20020610/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_1
]


In "Court Rejects Gun Appeals Cases" dated Mon Jun 10, 2002 10:17
AM ET, Anne Gearan of Associated Press writes:

  The Supreme Court interpreted that in 1939 as a protection
  of militia rights, not of individual ones.

That is a error of fact since the Supreme Court in the Miller
specifically acknowledged an individual right to arms.  Justice 
McReynolds wrote for the majority:

    http://rkba.org/judicial/miller-aultice/Miller.html

  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.
  "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And
  further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
  expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
  the kind in common use at the time.

Note "supplied by themselves" means individual ownership, not
government-issue, taking delivery at an armory, etc.

The particular question in Miller was whether ownership of his
short-barreled shotgun was thus protected as a militia arm.
However Miller fled trial and thus presented no defense.
So no one was in court to answer this question, resulting
in no "judicial notice", i.e. no one told the court one way
or the other.  McReynolds continues:

  In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
  or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen
  inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship
  to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,
  we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to
  keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within
  judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary
  military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
  common defense.   Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

So the Supreme Court in Miller argues that individual ownership
of arms appropriate to militia use is protected by the Second
Amendment.  Miller was not a member of any organized militia, 
yet the court took the case, finding that the right is individual.  
If it were not an individual right the Court could have refused 
the case simply on the grounds that Miller was not a militia 
member.

I hope you will correct this very significant error of fact.

Jeff Chan