- May 24, 2011
- Reaction score
- Upper Bucks County, PA
I alrady pointed out US v. Miller stated that there was a constitutional basis for gun control. Full stop. Done. Mike drop. That Scalia took the crazy NRA position doesn't take away from that.
I know you said that but you just saying that without any support for the statement means there is no "full stop" and definitely no "mike drop". That you never bother to actually rebut what I write shows you are stating what you FEEL the law is and maintaining your positions without any regard for that the real legal situation is.
Scalia didn't take the NRA's position, the SCOTUS has never endorsed any interpretation but:
The 2ndA recognizes a pre-existing right and secures an individual right without any reference or dependency on the Constitution and is possessed, exercised and protected without any conditioning based on the citizen's militia association / membership (or lack thereof).
Miller makes no hard determination on the constitutionality of gun control; Miller has been interpreted that government possess powers to restrict the possession and use by private citizens, the types of arms that are "dangerous and unusual".
So I'll ask, what exactly did Miller say about the possession and use by a private citizen of a shotgun with a barrel length OVER 18 inches long? I will not be holding my breath for your explanation . . .
Just for shits and giggles, I will repost what I wrote to you earlier about Miller that you chose to not acknowledge and certainly not reply to:
All Miller can be argued to say is the Court didn't have enough information to decide that the 2nd Amendment protected the civilian's possession and use of that one type of arm. Looking at Miller as a legal determination, the NFA-34 wasn't "upheld" by direct decision, it only received a stay of execution.
See, SCOTUS is not a fact finding body; it only considers the arguments presented to it by the parties. In Miller, the Court only heard the government's arguments, there was no appearance for Miller and Layton. The case ended with SCOTUS remanding the case for further proceedings, sending the case back down to have the lower court establish the relevant facts that were missing and perhaps SCOTUS could revisit the case if it was appealed again.
Having those facts -- is a sawed-off shotgun a type of arm that is any part of the ordinary military equipment or could it be used effectively in the common defense -- would allow the Supreme Court to actually decide the case. Of course Miller was dead and Layton took a plea deal so the case just evaporated, leaving a half-drawn picture, ripe for anti-gun liars to misrepresent the case.
Which they did to effect a couple years later in the lower federal court decisions I spoke of; Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation.
SCOTUS has never endorsed any other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but that it is an individual right possessed by the private citizen, protecting his personal arms, without any militia association conditioning.
If you have any legal argument that refutes those legal facts, I would love to hear it. I am not interested in you emoting and telling me how icky guns are and how terrible gun rights supporters are for demanding government not exercise powers it was never granted.