Gun Control......

[Glimmer Twins]

“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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“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?

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.

 

[William Joyce]

Has anyone ever heard a liberal justify federalized abortion "rights" based on a technical reading of the Constitution?

Me neither.

 

[Ninja]

Short barreled shotguns were used extensively in WWI, ~20 years prior to Miller.

 

[indago]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Ninja]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

They can have my weapons when they can take them away from me, probably after they kill me.

 

[Ninja]

They can have my weapons when they can take them away from me, probably after they kill me.

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

 

[LOki]

“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?

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,...

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

...we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

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.

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.

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

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.’

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."

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.

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..."

It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

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?

 

[Glimmer Twins]

The Second Amendment does nothing more than protect a national right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Steerpike]

The Second Amendment does nothing more than protect a national right to keep and bear arms.

No it protects an individual right, like the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court recently (finally) said the same thing.

 

[LOki]

The Second Amendment does nothing more than protect a national right to keep and bear arms.

There is really no such thing as a national right--there are only individual rights. A nation has no inherent rights, let alone a right to keep and bear arms. A nation's "rights" are derived from the rights of the People who constitute the nation; the People are the idividuals in possession of rights--in this case, the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the People, not the nation, to keep and bear arms.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

There is really no such thing as a national right--there are only individual rights. A nation has no inherent rights, let alone a right to keep and bear arms. A nation's "rights" are derived from the rights of the People who constitute the nation; the People are the idividuals in possession of rights--in this case, the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the People, not the nation, to keep and bear arms.

The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit a national religion and the Second Amendment does nothing more than protect a national, or collective, right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Steerpike]

The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit a national religion...

Lol. You should go read the Amendment. It does a lot more than that.

 

[LOki]

The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit a national religion...

The First Amendment protects individuals in their right ot their religion and the expression of their religion from government regulation.

...and the Second Amendment does nothing more than protect a national, or collective, right to keep and bear arms.

There is no such thing as collective or national rights that are not first individual rights.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

The decision still stands.

The decision was "reversed and remanded". The Supreme Court "unquashed" the indictment, and sent the case back to the district court for a trial on the issues so that if the case came before them again they would have a record to go by; and, as previously noted, there was no trial, and the case was left hanging without a hearing on the merits; no evidence proffered, nor facts developed.

An "unquashed" indictment was certainly not dispositive of the rights of Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton; nor of any of us. If a trial would have been held, it is quite possible that a jury would have arrived at the same conclusion that the judge did in his dismissal of the indictment. After all, who is the federal government to come into Arkansas and tell them what they can use for protection, and whether or not they can carry this protection in their car?


-

 

[Glimmer Twins]

The First Amendment protects individuals in their right to their religion and the expression of their religion from government regulation.

The First Amendment was unnecessary and did as much harm as good, because it suggested that the lawmakers gave the government general power over religion in the original unamended Constitution.

There is no such thing as collective or national rights that are not first individual rights.

Go tell that to the conservatives who interpret the Constitution to prevent nothing but a nation religion and its free exercise.

 

[LOki]

The First Amendment was unnecessary and did as much harm as good,...

This may be true, considering the arguments that some had regarding a Bill OF rights, but this:

...because it suggested that the lawmakers gave the government general power over religion in the original unamended Constitution.

...is nonsense. The First Amendemnt, along with the rest of the Bill OF Rights, suggests that it is insufficient to descibe for a government it's boundaries--you must also show it where it may not tresspass.

Go tell that to the conservatives who interpret the Constitution to prevent nothing but a nation religion and its free exercise.

I tell it to all statists--conservative AND liberal statists

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

The decision was "reversed and remanded". The Supreme Court "unquashed" the indictment, and sent the case back to the district court for a trial on the issues so that if the case came before them again they would have a record to go by; and, as previously noted, there was no trial, and the case was left hanging without a hearing on the merits; no evidence proffered, nor facts developed.

An "unquashed" indictment was certainly not dispositive of the rights of Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton; nor of any of us. If a trial would have been held, it is quite possible that a jury would have arrived at the same conclusion that the judge did in his dismissal of the indictment. After all, who is the federal government to come into Arkansas and tell them what they can use for protection, and whether or not they can carry this protection in their car?


-

The Government arrested them for taking it ACROSS state lines. Do at least keep up with the facts.