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.
Considering the circumstances (no appearance by Miller / Layton, the Court only heard the US government's arguments) the outcome really isn't that bad.
What was bad for gun rights was the misdirection and outright misrepresentations of Miller that began in 1942 and lasted until Heller righted the constitutional ship . . .
All in all I have no arguments with Miller; I can live with the protection criteria it set out for arms and I would like to hear why you think it was bad (especially equating it with Scott v Sanford).
putting a 200$ tax on a basic civil right..and the legal president it started..form the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
I note you only quoted 2 out of 145 words of a three part reply that contained substantive remarks addressing specific statements you made. You chose to play a martyr and whimper about my dismissive remark of your juvenile argument.
You are the hypocrite without a shred of intellectual integrity.
Attack, attack, attack. You have big words but you are not confident enough to rely on them with ad hominem. You cannot debate without name calling. Just like Madison, Jefferson, etc. They would be so proud of you.
You attack because deep down in side you know your opinion is only worth something to the choir on this forum and has no meaning outside the C-D servers.
Tendentious plays well here but "here" doesn't matter.
Citizens can still bear arms. Laws are there to regulate who, what, where, and how they can carry said firearms.
Law must be created within the express powers conferred upon the legislature (see Article I, § 8).
If the Congress is granted no power to act upon a particular interest and then that interest is then expressly recognized as a "right of the people" and the federal government is redundantly forbidden by that provision to exercise powers it was never granted then I would argue that no matter how much spin you put on it Congress has no power to dictate to the private citizen in any manner about his personal arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador
Not that difficult a concept, I tell you.
And yet you have such profound difficulty understanding fundamental constitutional principles as simple as conferred powers and retained rights . . .
Attack, attack, attack. You have big words but you are not confident enough to rely on them with ad hominem. You cannot debate without name calling. Just like Madison, Jefferson, etc. They would be so proud of you.
You attack because deep down in side you know your opinion is only worth something to the choir on this forum and has no meaning outside the C-D servers.
Tendentious plays well here but "here" doesn't matter.
Sir, the words of fool are worth less then nothing...
putting a 200$ tax on a basic civil right..and the legal president it started..form the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
Fighting the taxing power is an uphill battle no matter what you are discussing, that's why the law is written there.
Miller allowing NFA-34 to stand didn't have any real precedential value for future gun control. That was served up by lower federal courts 3 1/2 years later who ignored the clear determinations demanded by Miller. These lower federal courts outright dismissed SCOTUS and inserted the collective right theories in the federal courts.
One of those decisions offered an interpretation of what Miller stood for regarding the federal government's ability to write gun restrictions:
" . . . if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.
But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.
Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."
Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) (40K pdf)
So, the fact that Miller could be read to so effectively bind the federal government's ability to regulate arms of private citizens is the reason given that it can't be good law and such an effect of the 2nd Amendment could not have been the framer's intent.
This reasoning gave the Cases court the opportunity to create the "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
That, along with U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) (51.5K pdf) creating the "state's right" interpretation, is where the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was derailed.
SCOTUS has been consistent in affirming the gun rights argument on a philosophical level. That the very few actual cases appearing before it were not good vehicles to definitively legally enforce the right (prior to Heller and McDonald) is not really the fault of SCOTUS.
Attack, attack, attack. You have big words but you are not confident enough to rely on them with ad hominem. You cannot debate without name calling. Just like Madison, Jefferson, etc. They would be so proud of you.
You attack because deep down in side you know your opinion is only worth something to the choir on this forum and has no meaning outside the C-D servers.
Tendentious plays well here but "here" doesn't matter.
You came in here spouting unsupported drivel without any connection to legal reality.
I doubt you possess the intelligence to understand what I write, let alone the ability to effectively debate me.
I can recognize your ilk from your first sentence and you have lived up to my suspicions.
Feel free to read back, find a post of mine that doesn't offend your delicate emotional sensibilities and have a go at it on philosophical, historical or legal terms.
OK mister, exactly where does the Constitution talk about regulation?
Making sure guns don't get into the hands of crazies and thugs is infringing upon your rights now? Last I checked, you can still own a firearm just fine and dandy.
To answer your question, there is no passage in the Constitution that talks about it. That being said, where in the Constitution does it say that there can be no regulation?
And yet you have such profound difficulty understanding fundamental constitutional principles as simple as conferred powers and retained rights . . .
No difficulty whatsoever and your dramatic drop-off is totally off point there.
Forgive me, but I thought we as civilized and mild mannered Americans didn't want criminals, crooks, thugs, and the ilk getting their hands on firearms to run rampant on the streets and all that. Unless that is of course you support that kind of thing?
the feds only won their case in US v Miller because they lied. if they would have told the truth, there would never be a NFA34 or any other gun control law on the federal law books.
No difficulty whatsoever and your dramatic drop-off is totally off point there.
Forgive me, but I thought we as civilized and mild mannered Americans didn't want criminals, crooks, thugs, and the ilk getting their hands on firearms to run rampant on the streets and all that. Unless that is of course you support that kind of thing?
Thats sounds great until the government passes all these new UNconstitutional laws making ordinary, LAW ABIDING citizens criminals, and thus by your definition, not worthy of having a weapon.
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.
