Re: Silveira DENIED Certiorari

David Halpern wrote:

<snip>

> > ADAMS v. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1972):
> >
> > J. Douglas (Dissenting)
> >
> > The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth
> > Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can
> > acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our
> > citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights
> > protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well
> > regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
> > not be infringed."
> >
> > There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws
> > governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be
> > enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred
> > from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a
> > State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a
> > psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should
> > not be barred to everyone except the police.
> >
> > The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 ,
> > upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in
> > interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was
> > upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had
> > "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
> > efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The
> > Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and
> > applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
> >
> > "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and
> > train is set in contrast with Troops which they were
> > forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The
> > sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies;
> > the common view was that adequate defense of country and
> > laws could be [407 U.S. 143, 151]  secured through the
> > Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id.,
> > at 178-179.
> >
> > Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second
> > Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second
> > Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.
> > But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer
> > to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Join the NRA Blacklist!
> > http://www.nrablacklist.com/
> >
> > The Lone Weasel
> 
> LOL Lee you picked a dissent from THE most liberal Supreme Court Justice in
> history.
> 
> Let us figure out Lee if there are any less dissenting opinions?
> 
> Especially those from Justice Harrison since he is getting on in years and
> is in all probability senile.

Yet was William Douglas writing as liberal?  Not in the classic
sense.  A classic liberal was supposed believe in the maximum of
personal freedom,  In stark contrast to classic liberal thought,
Douglas takes the position of an extreme statist.

David