引用:
原帖由 loveless 於 7-11-2017 22:41 發表 
我諗好多人都冇認真睇過second amendment.
Person, persons, people. People 係collective body, 唔係個人。
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the ...
呢個爭議點打到上聯邦法院上訴庭: US v Timothy Joe Emerson 270 F3d. 203 (5th Cir. 2001) 係個個案例入面, 上訴法院深入分析唔同學者對第一句既理解, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" 其中一種理解係"第二修正案不適用於個人", 第二種係"有條件既個人權利", 第三種係"第二修正案容許個人擁有武器既權利". (見Emerson 一案A 部份). 而第五上訴法院考慮好多 (唔知係咪全部, 又或者係咪齊) 州最高法院同聯邦上訴法院案例後, 得到既結論係:
"We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
而Miller (United States v Miller 307 US 174 (1939)) 係聯邦最高法院案例, Miller 例外係指任何不能在現時同一支有紀律既民兵既保持同效率有合理關係既武器 "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
簡單黎講, 即係話係Emerson 一案, 聯邦第五上訴法院裁定政府不可以限制個人管有及"葵"帶(食字, 同音)槍械既權利, 但係條件係1. 個d槍械係適合作為個人武器; 2. 要係同一支有紀律既民兵既保持同效率有合理關係 (Miller 一案係關一支18 寸槍管12 號散彈槍事, 當時最高法院話無證據法官唔可以自己話支野係唔係同一支有紀律既民兵既保持同效率有合理關係), 但兩個條件同個個人本身係咪民兵組織成員無關.
而同一個結論係2008 年聯邦最高法院既 District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 一案亦都係以5:4 裁定, 第二修正案係容許個人擁有武器.(Antonin Scalia 上年過左身, 唔知如果同一個案件今日再審, 9 個法官會係4:5 定係5:4?)
[
本帖最後由 derp 於 8-11-2017 00:44 編輯 ]
"At the common law no man can be prohibited from working at any lawful trade, for the law abhors idleness."
Sir Edward Coke
