The Informer on Sunday answered a question about the American Civil Liberties Union and the Second Amendment, outlining a couple of recent cases the ACLU has filed on behalf of gun owners.

After reading the online copy of the column, a commenter cited two errors — one typographical, the other a mischaracterization.

In its response to the original question, The Informer quoted from a recent opinion issued by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. But one quotation — several sentences from the dissenting opinion — referred to the First Amendment when, as the context indicated, it should’ve read “Fourth Amendment.”

Additionally, as the commenter noted, the column mischaracterized an earlier Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Miller, wrongly saying the court had ruled the Second Amendment guaranteed a collective right to bear arms and that recent opinions had changed that interpretation to guarantee an individual right.

In the Miller case the court decided that a sawed-off shotgun had no discernible militia-type purpose, and it offered a disquisition on militias and their history in the colonies. In the decades that followed the decision, delivered in 1939, most courts cited the opinion in proclaiming the collective-right interpretation.

One notable exception was the 5th U.S. Circuit Court, which ruled in 2001 that the Constitution guaranteed an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense.

“In United States v. Emerson … after an extensive consideration of the text and historical understanding of the Second Amendment, we held that the Amendment ‘protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms,’ ” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the previously mentioned dissent.

“We were the first circuit so to hold.”

Your eyes are fine

The Informer last Wednesday responded to a question from a reader who wanted to know whether the print in the American Press is smaller than it used to be.

The column explained that the text size and the spacing between lines had both been reduced slightly as part of redesign of the newspaper.

In response, another reader emailed The Informer the following: “Oh, thank goodness! I was so glad to see in your column that the Press’ type size is now smaller. I thought my eyesight was failing!”

A third reader called on Tuesday to ask that the paper revert to the old type size: “Please leave it like it was. I’m an elderly senior, and I have many friends and we all feel the same way. But that small print — we’re going to have to cancel our subscription if you all leave it that way. So please reconsider.”

The Informer answers questions from readers each Sunday, Monday and Wednesday. It is researched and written by Andrew Perzo, an American Press staff writer. To ask a question, call 494-4098, press 5 and leave voice mail, or email informer@americanpress.com