The Real Truth From Ted Nugent

[M14 Shooter]

Miller was a direct appeal by the United States challenging the ruling of the lower court quashing the indictment under a federal statute (National Firearms Act of 1934) based on the Second Amendment. The issue before the court was whether section 11 of the Act violated the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court found no conflict between the National Firearms Act and the Second Amendment, and reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings...

...because of the weapon, not of Miller's relationship to the militia.

 

[indago]

It is noted, in the Miller case: "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 key words here are "In the absence of any evidence", and "we cannot say". There was no trial in the lower court 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 it, 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. Also, none of the Justices had been involved in a war, and could not take judicial notice of the use of a "shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length" being used by military personnel.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Therefore, the declaration: "In the absence of any evidence". Also, notice that the Supreme Court declared that: "we cannot say"; and, they didn't

Quite correct.
Of course, the obvious implication is that if that shotgun did have that reasonable relationship, it poseesion and/or use would be protected by the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point is inapposite; it only begs the question of regulation of firearms under the Second Amendment. Miller did not hold that regulation was prohibited under the Second Amendment, it held just the opposite....

... because the weapon in question was not found to qualify as among the "arms" protected by the 2nd.

What's that say about the constitutional viability of the regulation of weapons that DO qualify as "arms", therefore falling under the protection of the 2nd?
How?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look, I’m a gun owner too; which is why I am wary of the prospect that the Supreme Court will be making a pronouncement on our rights in a case that only affects the District of Columbia (which could be handled by remedial legislation by Congress), that will be binding as law in all 50 states. The Supreme Court is not going to rule that we have an unfettered right to own a gun, but rather that such right is subject to regulation by law. It is the scope of such a ruling that should have all gun owners very, very concerned.

You didn't answer my questions.

 

[indago]

The point is inapposite; it only begs the question of regulation of firearms under the Second Amendment. Miller did not hold that regulation was prohibited under the Second Amendment, it held just the opposite. In Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the National Firearms Act against the challenge that it violated the Second Amendment. That is the ratio decidendi of the court’s ruling in Miller, which is binding precedent. The relevant point is not whether a particular weapon meets the Miller test; but rather that it is nevertheless subject to regulation.

For an authoritative analysis of the Miller case, see U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) at:http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/978f2d1016.html

The eighth circuit federal court of appeals has declared: "In Miller, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. In so doing, the Court rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protected the possession of that weapon"

We all know that Jack Miller and Frank Layton were not convicted of any crime in this case, but instead, were released from custody, the judge quashing the indictment brought against Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton by the government prosecutors. The eighth circuit court of appeals, in making this erroneous declaration, tainted the record, making them appear as though they were appealing a conviction of a crime, and setting the pace for their other bold declaration: "In so doing, the Court rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protected the possession of that weapon". We all know that there was no representation for Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton at the hearing before the Supreme Court; therefore, they could not have made the argument that the eighth circuit federal court of appeals referenced. This court opinion is tainted, and could hardly be considered to be any "legal precedent".

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end???

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

 

[Lookout]

Look, I’m a gun owner too; which is why I am wary of the prospect that the Supreme Court will be making a pronouncement on our rights in a case that only affects the District of Columbia (which could be handled by remedial legislation by Congress), that will be binding as law in all 50 states. The Supreme Court is not going to rule that we have an unfettered right to own a gun, but rather that such right is subject to regulation by law. It is the scope of such a ruling that should have all gun owners very, very concerned.

How about WAY beyond concerned. The president has now succeeded where no one has before. He’s managed to kill the writ of habeas corpus. You can now be arrested if someone just THINKS you might commit a crime. You can be detained indefinitely without due process. God has been removed from the school system and from even the swearing in of a witness in Court. Now they want to, and are slowly, taking away our rights one at a time. Bit by bit. Now they want to slowly take away our guns...WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!!! This isn't a dream...or a nightmare...This is happening!!!, and you him hawers are hypnotized or something. I guess the gun haters won't understand until they are on a (free train ride...oh, look at the pretty train) On the way to a gas chamber. All it takes is the wrong person to get in office now and we could all be saying zig heil.

 

[trobinett]

How about WAY beyond concerned. The president has now succeeded where no one has before. He’s managed to kill the writ of habeas corpus. You can now be arrested if someone just THINKS you might commit a crime. You can be detained indefinitely without due process. God has been removed from the school system and from even the swearing in of a witness in Court. Now they want to, and are slowly, taking away our rights one at a time. Bit by bit. Now they want to slowly take away our guns...WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!!! This isn't a dream...or a nightmare...This is happening!!!, and you him hawers are hypnotized or something. I guess the gun haters won't understand until they are on a (free train ride...oh, look at the pretty train) On the way to a gas chamber. All it takes is the wrong person to get in office now and we could all be saying zig heil.

Your sick dude!

 

[jillian]

Your sick dude!

He's right on habeas corpus; and there's illegal wiretapping and unlawful search and seizure. There's rendition of people we think maybe, might be, could be thinking something bad... all in the name of fear.

He's wrong about school to the extent that G-d doesn't belong in public school; and he's wrong about the oath in court.... whether a person swears or affirms is still up to the person.

Guns... well, I've never seen gun as the end of tyranny. They take away our rights without firing a shot. And a bunch of folk with guns sure aren't taking out the U.S. military.

 

[Lookout]

He's right on habeas corpus; and there's illegal wiretapping and unlawful search and seizure. There's rendition of people we think maybe, might be, could be thinking something bad... all in the name of fear.

He's wrong about school to the extent that G-d doesn't belong in public school; and he's wrong about the oath in court.... whether a person swears or affirms is still up to the person.

Guns... well, I've never seen gun as the end of tyranny. They take away our rights without firing a shot. And a bunch of folk with guns sure aren't taking out the U.S. military.

Sheesh...You can't even type the word God, let alone say it. God is everywhere no matter how much people try to get rid of him, her , it. They might have done away with prayer and using the word God in school, but God is still there despite the feeble attempt to get rid of him, her, it. Before Prayer and the use of God was taken out of the public school system there was less shootings and deaths in public school...Think there might be a link...NO, because you can't even type the word God.
You are wrong about the oath in court. The person doing the swearing in is not allowed to say "So help me God". I guess they don't see the need for God to help someone tell the truth anymore. Just for arguement sake, Lets say there really isn't a God and any belief in such is a meer waste of time. If one person believes in it that is contemplating homicidel suicide, and it stops him from doing it, isn't that a good thing to have in place. Its funny, people will put all kinds of man made security devices in school and take out one of the main things that will aid in the security...GOD!
Momma always said, stupid is as stupid does.
While I am at it. To all the gun haters. This country is one man made disaster or one serious natural disaster away from rioting in the streets. Look at Katrina. Now multiply that by one hundred.
What if...Oboma gets elected as our new president and upon his swearing in, he is assinated by a white man?
What if a dirty bomb goes off in Los Angeles? What if?, What if?, What if???. There are alot of bigger things waiting to happen in the near future just around the corner and just because you anti gun nuts see life through rose colored glasses, does not make things better or prevent them from happening.

 

[jillian]

Sheesh...You can't even type the word God, let alone say it. God is everywhere no matter how much people try to get rid of him, her , it. They might have done away with prayer and using the word God in school, but God is still there despite the feeble attempt to get rid of him, her, it. Before Prayer and the use of God was taken out of the public school system there was less shootings and deaths in public school...Think there might be a link...NO, because you can't even type the word God.
You are wrong about the oath in court. The person doing the swearing in is not allowed to say "So help me God". I guess they don't see the need for God to help someone tell the truth anymore. Just for arguement sake, Lets say there really isn't a God and any belief in such is a meer waste of time. If one person believes in it that is contemplating homicidel suicide, and it stops him from doing it, isn't that a good thing to have in place. Its funny, people will put all kinds of man made security devices in school and take out one of the main things that will aid in the security...GOD!
Momma always said, stupid is as stupid does.
While I am at it. To all the gun haters. This country is one man made disaster or one serious natural disaster away from rioting in the streets. Look at Katrina. Now multiply that by one hundred.
What if...Oboma gets elected as our new president and upon his swearing in, he is assinated by a white man?
What if a dirty bomb goes off in Los Angeles? What if?, What if?, What if???. There are alot of bigger things waiting to happen in the near future just around the corner and just because you anti gun nuts see life through rose colored glasses, does not make things better or prevent them from happening.

Well, since we made friends earlier on, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your opening comments and assume you a) don't know I'm Jewish; and
b) don't know that Jew's don't write G-d's name. Just how it is. So it's not that I can't say it. It's that I DON'T write it.

It is also part of the reason that I don't believe G-d belongs in school. The government shouldn't be paying money for anything that supports a religion. So, whose prayers get told in school? Yours? Mine? The Muslim family's down the street? Better that religion stays where it belongs, in Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Buddhist Temple, etc... and at home. It's why we have the separation of church and state.

Finally, I'm a lawyer. I see witnesses get sworn in all the time. No one is prohibited from saying "so help me, G-d"... no one. So, I'm not sure where you get that.

And you already know I'm not anti-gun, and that, specifically, it's not really my issue. I leave issues on guns to the Courts and the Second Amendment. So, I'll figure the last part of your post wasn't directed at me.

So there you go.

 

[Lookout]

Hi Jillian...I was ignorant to the Jew writing thing, thanks for pointing that out to me. I learn something new every day. The gun stuff was not meant to go in your direction at all. As far as Praying in school, I do not see why there can't be a time and place set aside for silent prayer by the students. What about teaching creationism along side of darwinism and as part of physics.
So we can pay for metal detectors and hallway monitors but we cant have 5 minutes for silent prayer? What about the pledge of allegiance? Do we remove it all together or just the part one nation under god? No they are not prohibited from saying "so help me got", It has just been omited from the prompt.

 

[manu1959]

Hi Jillian...I was ignorant to the Jew writing thing, thanks for pointing that out to me. I learn something new every day. The gun stuff was not meant to go in your direction at all. As far as Praying in school, I do not see why there can't be a time and place set aside for silent prayer by the students. What about teaching creationism along side of darwinism and as part of physics.
So we can pay for metal detectors and hallway monitors but we cant have 5 minutes for silent prayer? What about the pledge of allegiance? Do we remove it all together or just the part one nation under god?

there should be a theology class at school where various religions and religious theories are taught...

 

[jillian]

Hi Jillian...I was ignorant to the Jew writing thing, thanks for pointing that out to me. I learn something new every day. The gun stuff was not meant to go in your direction at all. As far as Praying in school, I do not see why there can't be a time and place set aside for silent prayer by the students. What about teaching creationism along side of darwinism and as part of physics.
So we can pay for metal detectors and hallway monitors but we cant have 5 minutes for silent prayer? What about the pledge of allegiance? Do we remove it all together or just the part one nation under god? No they are not prohibited from saying "so help me got", It has just been omited from the prompt.

No problem. I didn't think you knew.

It's not the job of school to provide a religious experience. I'm grateful they don't do that. As for the pledge of allegience, you know that it didn't say "under G-d" until the McCarthy Era as a way to weed out the big, bad commies, right? Makes not one bit of difference to our lives either way.

As for teaching creationism? Why would we give theology equal weight with science in a science class? You want to teach creationism, by all means do so, in a comparitive theology class.

And no, they haven't omitted the prompt... I hear it every day.

 

[indago]

Lookout wrote:

What about the pledge of allegiance? Do we remove it all together or just the part one nation under god?

Yes, the "pledge of allegiance" should be removed, but not for the reason indicated. Considering the term allegiance, and the hierarchical relationship between the people, the State, and the federal government, as recorded in Article Ten of the Bill of Rights, the pledge of allegiance to the flag, and to the United States, should be abolished. All who work for government should be required, every morning, to pledge their allegiance to the people whom they serve; and to reaffirm their oath to uphold the Constitution. This would be a daily reminder of their status, and their servile position. It is predictable that their attitude would change.

 

[Shogun]

I'd put the ORIGINAL pledge of Allegiance back into the schools...


Official versions (changes in bold italics)
1892
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
1892 to 1923
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
1923 to 1954
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
1954 to Present
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."



God is not a prerequisite for learning. Take your jebus lectures to church where they belong.

 

[Taomon]

Love his music, love his ideas, love the fact that he is involved in the N.R.A.
It's really sad that the dumbasses that are for gun controll still wont get it until something happens to them on a personal note. I guess they all think it can't happen to them. They must be special. So to all you Anti-gun idiots...watch this!

What exactly is wrong with a month long wait to purchase a firearm while a thorough background check is done?

Better yet, shouldn't armor piercing bullets be illegal anyway?

 

[Lookout]

I'd put the ORIGINAL pledge of Allegiance back into the schools...


Official versions (changes in bold italics)
1892
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
1892 to 1923
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
1923 to 1954
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
1954 to Present
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."



God is not a prerequisite for learning. Take your jebus lectures to church where they belong.

There was no JEBUS mention in my "Lecture". I and the comment refered to God. God can refer to any religion. Man, who pissed in your corn flakes!

 

[Lookout]

What exactly is wrong with a month long wait to purchase a firearm while a thorough background check is done?

Better yet, shouldn't armor piercing bullets be illegal anyway?

First of all: Thanks to our wonderful electronic world, a background check can be done in minutes. If you were being stalked by a serial killer, would you want to wait a month to purchase a handgun? If you just moved into a new house and the people there before were drug dealers and bad people were breaking into your house regularly and etc. etc. etc.
As for the armor piercing bullets, I can not think of one reason they would be necessary to have other than the fact that some crack heads doing robberies are wearing body armor now. Personally, I like knowing that if someone broke into my house and did my wife or family harm and I was in chase of them and they had already got to their car and were driving off, I could penetrate the car door to stop them. Of course, I wield a bad ass .308 which is 7.62X51 so it doesn't really matter armor piercing or not. My ruger mini 30 however takes 7.62X39 and surplus armor piercing ammo is dirt cheap. I would never use either unless I had to. For an emergency situation in my house, I would grab my glock .45 cal. with hollow points so as to not hurt someone across the street or next door.