Changes

In ''Love v. Pepersack'', 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995), the Court of Appeals for the [[Fourth Circuit]] rejected a claim that constitutional rights were violated when state troopers denied a woman's application for a handgun.

In ''Love v. Pepersack'', 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995), the Court of Appeals for the [[Fourth Circuit]] rejected a claim that constitutional rights were violated when state troopers denied an application for a handgun by plaintiff Ms. Love.

The sweeping language of the ruling is cited by opponents of an individual [[Second Amendment]] right:

The sweeping language of the ruling is cited by opponents of an individual [[Second Amendment]] right:

:Johnson's argument that [18 U.S.C. § ] 922(g) is an unconstitutional violation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not new. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S. Ct. at 818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia.

:Johnson's argument that [18 U.S.C. § ] 922(g) is an unconstitutional violation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not new. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939). The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S. Ct. at 818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia.

The 2-1 panel of the [[Fourth Circuit]] concluded that:

Two judges of the [[Fourth Circuit]] concluded that:

:Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia.

:Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia.

[[category:Second Amendment]]

[[category:Second Amendment]]