What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
Charles F. ECKERT, Appellant, v. The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.
No. 71-1865.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted April 6, 1973.
Decided May 2, 1973.
Charles F. Eckert, pro se.
Martin Weinberg, City Sol., John Mattioni, Deputy City Sol., Howard D. Scher, Asst. City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, ROSENN and JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, here petitioned the district court to enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcing its ordinance which regulates the purchase of firearms and transfer of same. Appellant’s theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that. As long ago at least as 1939 the United States Supreme Court held that there must be “ * * * some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. There is nothing whatsoever of that kind in this appeal. It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Actually the City ordinance attacked by appellant has been rendered moot by declaration of the Pennsylvania Superior Court holding that the Philadelphia Ordinance above presented was preempted by an Act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1962. See Commonwealth v. Ray, 218 Pa.Super. 72, 272 A.2d 275 (1970).
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4