[Referring to the Reuters coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear Emerson and Haney. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20020610/ts_nm/court_guns_dc_1 ] In "Supreme Court Declines Review on Right to Own Guns", dated Mon Jun 10, 2002 10:17 AM ET, James Vicini writes: The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939 when it said the amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia." That is at best a half-truth 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. Reuter's mentioning only the militia is misleading since the right in Miller is clearly individual. 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 error. Jeff Chan