Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep. An example mentioned here, is their ruling that the 2nd applied only to people actively in a militia. A real leader finally showed up (Antonin Scalia), and wrote in 2008 that it wasn't so. The right to Keep and bear arms is an individual right.
More to come.
Perhaps you should read Scalia's majority opinion.
The list of things the supreme court got wrong, is pretty high.. . .and can be fixed later, when real leaders show up.
well, still waiting for a real leader to show up, we sure as hell dont have a real leader in office now, and didnt have one when gw was in office either. i wonder if we will have a real leader in 2016?
Miller's shotgun was declared to be not protected by the 2nd amendment, for the sole reason that it was not a military-style firearm. Says so right in the Opinion. (Actually it was a military-style firearm, but the lies of the government agents in the room held sway).
Clearly, guns that ARE military-style, ARE protected under the 2nd.
("Clearly" means, to anybody other than the paranoid gun-haters.)
It doesn't matter to our resident leftists/communists/liberals/gun haters what any court says,doesn't matter to their dear marxist leader either. Only thing idiots like that understand is the barrel of a gun shoved in their face ready to fire. Plain and simple.
It doesn't matter to our resident leftists/communists/liberals/gun haters what any court says,doesn't matter to their dear marxist leader either. Only thing idiots like that understand is the barrel of a gun shoved in their face ready to fire. Plain and simple.
Ahh the sounds of a person who would be the first to pee their pants if ever in a real situation.
The "arms" which possession are protected by the Second Amendment are those which have been issued by any government to its "foot" soldiers, that is, as individual armament.
This list is so enormous that its compilation would be described as "more tedious than difficult."
Every weapon from whatever Cain (a member of the Militia) used to kill Abel with to RPGs and other modern infantry weapons are, according to the reasoning in Miller, protected.
If Miller is closely read it should be found that the ONLY arm carriable by a "foot" soldier that is actually not protected by the 2d Amendment is "a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230."
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." -- Miller
The only such "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" mentioned in the body of this ruling and again referred to as "such an instrument," "part of the ordinary military equipment" and such "that its use could contribute to the common defense" is the within mentioned Stevens shotgun 76230.
Court rulings involving rights protected by the Constitution and laws passed in conformity thereof are to be narrowly construed in favor of such protected rights. The constitutional rights of "the People of the United States" are to be given the broadest reading commensurate with all of the rights of all the people, for whose benefit the Constitution was enacted in the first place.
This is a major part of why the NFA and subsequent statutes regarding the right to keep and bear arms are revenue (taxing) statutes. The Congress that wrote and passed the NFA and the later Gun Control Act of 1968 recognized that outright prohibition of anything that fell within the category of "arms" would be unconstitutional. So they imposed heavy taxes on certain of such things.
What other items require the manufacturer, receiver or possessor to obtain permission before the tax can be paid and the item received, and that the proof of payment must be kept with the item forever?
It is easy to see that various aspects of the federal firearms statutes are unconstitutional in several respects despite the supposed circumvention of the 2d Amendment by taxing them. What is needed are cases that challenge each of the unconstitutional aspects of the federal firearms statutes. Such challenges must not be allowed to stagnate by such travesties as the Miller case but by well-financed, competent organizations that hire the best attorneys. If the NRA had backed the Miller case likely we would not have the trampling on our rights we suffer under today, and innocent noncriminal Americans languishing in dungeons. Unfortunately the NRA of the late 1930s was chiefly interested in "sporting" arms, not military. Further, machineguns, sawed-offs and such like had little public support. By 1942 the nation was distracted from issues of rights by the new war.
The Government may raise a revenue by excise and certain other taxes enumerated in the Constitution. Stuffs that are necessary or that promote the exercise of constitutional rights may be taxed. However, I strongly believe that they may not be taxed discriminatorily, that is, at a higher rate than other such articles. Firearms are commonly made of various materials. Such materials used in firearms may not constitutionally be taxed at a higher rate than the same materials generally. Taxed as manufactured items, firearms may not be taxed at higher rates than similar manufactured items (stamped, cast, milled, molded items).
What about "shall not be infringed" are politicians and bureaucrats unable to understand?
Ahh the sounds of a person who would be the first to pee their pants if ever in a real situation.
Peeing in one's pants doesn't mean that one is unable to fight. Soldiers commonly pee and **** their pants in battle. As long as they don't let either corrode their guns they can still shoot.
well, still waiting for a real leader to show up, we sure as hell dont have a real leader in office now, and didnt have one when gw was in office either. i wonder if we will have a real leader in 2016?
I'm not sure you're reading the case right. The ruling in Miller said there was no violation of the 2nd Amendment for restricting firearms.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
And Miller had no bearing on whether the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals. It exclusively dealt with the issue of weapon type, and was not a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.
The prosecution ruled that this particular class of weapon (short barreled shotguns) did not have some reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. As such, it could be regulated. Read a bit further into that. They exempted this particular class of firearm because it wasn't a military arm. They did NOT say that actual "military style" firearms, which do indeed bear a relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a militia, could be regulated. So, in theory, sporting firearms ("hunting" shotguns and rifles) could be restricted, but military arms COULD NOT.
Obviously, as the OP demonstrated, the pros lied in the first place. Short barreled shotguns had a long history of use in the military. But absent a defense witness or attorney go debate that, the SC agreed with that regulation on non-military weapons. They specifically did not mention other firearms classes impacted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, specifically automatic firearms, short barreled rifles and suppressors (not a class there, but an accessory).
The other interesting aspect of the case is that this was a case based not on "restricting" firearms as such, but as to the right of the treasury department to apply a specific tax to firearms for "revenue generation" purposes. In fact, it had nothing to do with revenue generation. NFA1934 was a jobs program, pure and simple. With the expiration of prohibition, a large number of federal agents had nothing to do, no job to justify their existence. But like most government agencies, they couldn't be allowed to shrink just because they were useless. So they passed a new law as a way to justify their existence. In terms of the purported purpose of the act (revenue), it was a massive failure. The excessive fees (in 1934 dollars) ensured that very few would pay the tax for the privilege of owning a commonly owned product. As such, NFA1934 always cost the feds more than it raised.
It will be very interesting if Miller is revisited by the SC.
***crap, edit to add, did not read BobTrent's post before replying. His post is an outstanding summary of Miller 1934.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is "ordinary military equipment"?
Win in '16?
