re some more about gun control in article apr beaver cs washington edu graham cs washington edu stephen graham writes in article qhpcn b transfer stratus com cdt sw stratus com c d tavares writes consider a similar structure a well educated electorate being necessary for the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed now does this mean only the electorate can keep and read books does it mean only registered voters can keep and read books does it mean only those who have voted can keep and read books does it imply any restrictions at all on the right to keep and read books but it would imply that the state had the right to regulate and enforce education that s nice but it doesn t answer the question there is a difference between the feds can mandate literacy and the feds can t interfere with literacy book possession as far as john q public with a gun the supreme court has already ruled in cases such as us v miller u s and us v verdugo urquidez s ct that that is exactly what the amendment protects this interpretation can be found as far back as the dred scott case in it s worth noting that us vs miller sustained miller s conviction of possession of an illegal firearm noting that a sawed off shotgun was not a proper militia weapon therefore us vs miller supports limited government regulation of firearms actually the miller court did nothing of the kind it remanded the case back to the trial court because the miller court didn t know if the weapon in question was a militia weapon doesn t it bother anyone that a major constitutional issue was taken up in a case where there was no defense miller had been released by the appeals court and disappeared only the govt was represented we don t know what would have happened with the reasonable all guns are militia weapons argument andy
