Gun Control......

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Glimmer Twins, May 29, 2008.

  1. Glimmer Twins
    Offline

    Glimmer Twins BANNED

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1
    “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. The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” (emphasis provided)

    --U. S. vs. Miller​

    Where's the error in that?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,520
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    One error would be that shotguns, including short barreled ones can be argued to have been used especially in trench warfare. But that is fine, the ruling is reasonable. It allows the Government reasonable restrictions on WHAT one can own, but does not allow banning of weapons that are "military" in nature, as in the so called old Assault Weapon ban that specifically banned MILITARY style weapons.
     
  3. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Has anyone ever heard a liberal justify federalized abortion "rights" based on a technical reading of the Constitution?

    Me neither.
     
  4. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +377
    Short barreled shotguns were used extensively in WWI, ~20 years prior to Miller.
     
  5. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,049
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    Jack Miller and Frank Layton were apprehended carrying a sawed-off shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam, Arkansas. They were brought, under indictment, to the federal district court in Arkansas. The indictment filed against Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton charged, in part, that they "did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length...", in violation of the Federal Firearms Act, 26 USC Section 1132, a felony crime. Their response to the indictment was a demurrer, which reads, in part, that the National Firearms Act "offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment", infringing upon their right to keep and bear arms. They claimed that they had committed no crime. The federal court agreed, quashed the indictment, and they were discharged from custody.

    The prosecutor filed a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. There was no brief filed by Mr. Miller or Mr. Layton. The Supreme Court "unquashed" the indictment and sent the case back to the federal court in Arkansas for trial. There was no trial. The case stands as such, with no hearing on the merits of the case.

    What the Court did say was: "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."

    So, the key words here are "In the absence of any evidence", and "we cannot say". There was no trial in which evidence and facts could be developed; and, there was no representation for Mr. Miller or Mr. Layton at the hearing in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the declaration: "In the absence of any evidence". Also, notice that the Supreme Court declared that: "we cannot say"; and, they didn't. They were declaring that "In the absence of any evidence" pro or con concerning a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length', "we cannot say" that it could be used by a military or not. They didn't say, and they remanded the case back to the trial court for a trial on the issues for evidence to be produced and facts to be developed.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,520
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    The decision still stands. The basic decision of the case being that a weapon must be of or have been of a military nature or use to the militia or military to be covered. A win for 2nd amendment rights except for the belief that sawed off shot guns were not military in nature.

    I argued when the Assault Gun ban passed it violated this ruling, in that the specific reason to ban in the bill was that the weapon WAS a military style weapon. No one took it to court cause neither side was sure they could win.
     
  7. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +377
    In a few weeks we'll have a good start on overturning the NFA on the grounds that it's unconstitutional. Miller is a joke but baby steps, gentlemen. Gura pwned dillinger and if Heller doesn't go our way I will sell my guns and give the proceeds to the Brady Campaign.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,520
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    They can have my weapons when they can take them away from me, probably after they kill me.
     
  9. Ninja
    Offline

    Ninja Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Glorious People's Republic of California
    Ratings:
    +377
    I'm being facetious. Ain't never giving up my weapons. It's a moot point anyway, since the Heller decision will have anti-gunners everywhere doing their best Bud Dwyer impressions :cool:
     
  10. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    Ignoring the evidence that short barrrelled shotguns are military weapons is not "...absence of any evidence..."; it is willful and purposful ignorance.

    Except that the Right addressed by the 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms--the right is not limited to military arms; in fact, the Right is not to be infringed upon.

    So they MUST say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

    Ignoring the evidence that short barrrelled shotguns are military weapons is not "...absence of any evidence..."; it is willful and purposful ignorance.

    This may be true of the Constitution as originally adopted, but very closely thereafter the Constitution was Ameneded--an important addition to the the Constitution as originally adopted was the Second Amendment which states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The Constitution as originally adopted empowered the government to call forth the militia, etc..., then the Bill of Rights made a clear and unambiguous declaration regarding the limits of the powers granted--in particular; "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The Government's rationale for specifically declaring "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms..." is certainly for the purpose of assuring "...the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made."

    However, the purpose of the Government is to protect the rights of the People, including "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms..."

    The 2nd Amendment must be interpreted with the intent and purpose of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights in mind. The intent and purpose of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights is to place limits upon the powers that the government may excersize, and protect the rights of the People, including (but not limited to) "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms."

    See the errors now?
     

Share This Page