What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

[M14 Shooter]

Yes there is support for the notion that before Heller the 2nd only applied to a collective right. One can read Miller to say that...

Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

and this position of there only being a collective right was shared by FOUR dissenting Justices in Heller.

And what jurisprudence did they cite in support of that position?

 

[M14 Shooter]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

And so, you cannot point to the "understanding" you claimed..
Just as i said.

 

[bendog]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it. (-:

 

[M14 Shooter]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it.

That, however, was not the test laid out in Miller.

 

[bendog]

Yes there is support for the notion that before Heller the 2nd only applied to a collective right. One can read Miller to say that...

Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

and this position of there only being a collective right was shared by FOUR dissenting Justices in Heller.

And what jurisprudence did they cite in support of that position?

Dude, I'm not reading FOR you. LOL

You can read Stevens's dissent for yourself.



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Dan Daly]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it. (-:

Miller was incorrect anyway. While sawed-down shotguns may not have been military issues, shotguns were routinely sawed off and used by our troops in WWI.

If you read up on the entire context of Miller, it was nothing but a greek freakin tragedy.

 

[bendog]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it.

That, however, was not the test laid out in Miller.

Uh, no.

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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes there is support for the notion that before Heller the 2nd only applied to a collective right. One can read Miller to say that...

Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

and this position of there only being a collective right was shared by FOUR dissenting Justices in Heller.

And what jurisprudence did they cite in support of that position?

Dude, I'm not reading FOR you. LOL
You can read Stevens's dissent for yourself.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I've read it.
Just waiting for you to support what you said.

Now, did you have a response to...
Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

 

[bendog]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it. (-:

Miller was incorrect anyway. While sawed-down shotguns may not have been military issues, shotguns were routinely sawed off and used by our troops in WWI.

If you read up on the entire context of Miller, it was nothing but a greek freakin tragedy.

I don't know about it being a greek tragedy, but trying to make logical sense of how it got to where the Justices wanted it to come out is painful. LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it.

That, however, was not the test laid out in Miller.

Uh, no.
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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

"....any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense..."
And so, the fact that you "cannot logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing" is meaningless as to determining if a weapon is protected by the 2nd, under Miller.

 

[bendog]

Yes there is support for the notion that before Heller the 2nd only applied to a collective right. One can read Miller to say that...

Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

and this position of there only being a collective right was shared by FOUR dissenting Justices in Heller.

And what jurisprudence did they cite in support of that position?

Dude, I'm not reading FOR you. LOL
You can read Stevens's dissent for yourself.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I've read it.
Just waiting for you to support what you said.

Now, did you have a response to...
Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

I'm certainly glad you can read it, but the fact is other courts held that Miller held there is no individual right, because the only justification of anyone having a gun was to participate in a militia.

you view all this through your preconceived notions rather than even attempting to understand historical context of the times.

Dante is over the top, but I have to agree with him here.

 

[Dan Daly]

.... and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it. (-:

Miller was incorrect anyway. While sawed-down shotguns may not have been military issues, shotguns were routinely sawed off and used by our troops in WWI.

If you read up on the entire context of Miller, it was nothing but a greek freakin tragedy.

I don't know about it being a greek tragedy, but trying to make logical sense of how it got to where the Justices wanted it to come out is painful. LOL

Sometimes you gotta read a little fiction to get a good 'in a nutshell' grasp of reality. John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" presented a pretty good overview of the entirety of Miller.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes there is support for the notion that before Heller the 2nd only applied to a collective right. One can read Miller to say that...

Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

and this position of there only being a collective right was shared by FOUR dissenting Justices in Heller.

And what jurisprudence did they cite in support of that position?

Dude, I'm not reading FOR you. LOL
You can read Stevens's dissent for yourself.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I've read it.
Just waiting for you to support what you said.
Now, did you have a response to...
Not honestly, as Miller, an individual not associated in any way with any militia, was granted standing to use the 2nd as his defense; the decision in Miller spoke to the weapons protected by the 2nd, not who enjoyed the rights under it protection.

I'm certainly glad you can read it, but the fact is other courts held that Miller held there is no individual right, because the only justification of anyone having a gun was to participate in a militia.

BUT.... that's not what Miller said. There's no text in Miller whatsoever that supports that position.

 

[bendog]

I will ask you to cite the SCotUS jurisprudence to that effect.
You know will faill to do so, because you know you cannot.
And so, your statement, above, is a lie.

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it. (-:

Miller was incorrect anyway. While sawed-down shotguns may not have been military issues, shotguns were routinely sawed off and used by our troops in WWI.

If you read up on the entire context of Miller, it was nothing but a greek freakin tragedy.

I don't know about it being a greek tragedy, but trying to make logical sense of how it got to where the Justices wanted it to come out is painful. LOL

Sometimes you gotta read a little fiction to get a good 'in a nutshell' grasp of reality. John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" presented a pretty good overview of the entirety of Miller.

There was an element of "Oh crap, we have to find this law constitutional somehow. I mean Bonnie and Clyde AND the St. Valentines Day Massacre." LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

Huh? The point being SCOTUS never decided on the issue until Heller.

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I'm wrong point out the exact case and wording and I will apologize.

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it. (-:

Miller was incorrect anyway. While sawed-down shotguns may not have been military issues, shotguns were routinely sawed off and used by our troops in WWI.

If you read up on the entire context of Miller, it was nothing but a greek freakin tragedy.

I don't know about it being a greek tragedy, but trying to make logical sense of how it got to where the Justices wanted it to come out is painful. LOL

Sometimes you gotta read a little fiction to get a good 'in a nutshell' grasp of reality. John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" presented a pretty good overview of the entirety of Miller.

There was an element of "Oh crap, we have to find this law constitutional somehow. I mean Bonnie and Clyde AND the St. Valentines Day Massacre." LOL

I don't have an issue with what the court ruled, as given the circumstances, they could not have honestly ruled anything else.

 

[Dan Daly]

You are not wrong. Miller held, among other things, that the 2nd only protected ownership of military type firearms appropriate for a militia. There the arms prohibited were "gangster guns," like cut down shotguns and the famous Tommy Gun.

Now, if you asked me to logically explain how that would be consistent with settlers using short barrel shotguns for women and children to defend themselves, or how gentlemen commonly carried pocket pistols of ..... the whole cowboy thing .... I couldn't do it. (-:

Miller was incorrect anyway. While sawed-down shotguns may not have been military issues, shotguns were routinely sawed off and used by our troops in WWI.

If you read up on the entire context of Miller, it was nothing but a greek freakin tragedy.

I don't know about it being a greek tragedy, but trying to make logical sense of how it got to where the Justices wanted it to come out is painful. LOL

Sometimes you gotta read a little fiction to get a good 'in a nutshell' grasp of reality. John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" presented a pretty good overview of the entirety of Miller.

There was an element of "Oh crap, we have to find this law constitutional somehow. I mean Bonnie and Clyde AND the St. Valentines Day Massacre." LOL

I don't have an issue with what the court ruled, as given the circumstances, they could not have honestly ruled anything else.

I disagree, they could have ruled that the arrest was a farce, which it was, and that the entire NFA was a farce, which it was, but oh well, can't change history.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Miller was incorrect anyway. While sawed-down shotguns may not have been military issues, shotguns were routinely sawed off and used by our troops in WWI.

If you read up on the entire context of Miller, it was nothing but a greek freakin tragedy.

I don't know about it being a greek tragedy, but trying to make logical sense of how it got to where the Justices wanted it to come out is painful. LOL

Sometimes you gotta read a little fiction to get a good 'in a nutshell' grasp of reality. John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" presented a pretty good overview of the entirety of Miller.

There was an element of "Oh crap, we have to find this law constitutional somehow. I mean Bonnie and Clyde AND the St. Valentines Day Massacre." LOL

I don't have an issue with what the court ruled, as given the circumstances, they could not have honestly ruled anything else.

I disagree, they could have ruled that the arrest was a farce, which it was, and that the entire NFA was a farce, which it was, but oh well, can't change history.

Not without the evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was related to the efficacy of the militia.

 

[Dan Daly]

Sometimes you gotta read a little fiction to get a good 'in a nutshell' grasp of reality. John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" presented a pretty good overview of the entirety of Miller.

There was an element of "Oh crap, we have to find this law constitutional somehow. I mean Bonnie and Clyde AND the St. Valentines Day Massacre." LOL

I don't have an issue with what the court ruled, as given the circumstances, they could not have honestly ruled anything else.

I disagree, they could have ruled that the arrest was a farce, which it was, and that the entire NFA was a farce, which it was, but oh well, can't change history.

Not without the evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was related to the efficacy of the militia.

Oh please, that evidence was available to anyone who cared to look. Sawed-off shotguns had already proved their worth in WWI. If you knew anything about the original arrest, the shotgun was just an excuse. Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sometimes you gotta read a little fiction to get a good 'in a nutshell' grasp of reality. John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" presented a pretty good overview of the entirety of Miller.

There was an element of "Oh crap, we have to find this law constitutional somehow. I mean Bonnie and Clyde AND the St. Valentines Day Massacre." LOL

I don't have an issue with what the court ruled, as given the circumstances, they could not have honestly ruled anything else.

I disagree, they could have ruled that the arrest was a farce, which it was, and that the entire NFA was a farce, which it was, but oh well, can't change history.

Not without the evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was related to the efficacy of the militia.

Oh please, that evidence was available to anyone who cared to look.

The evidence was not presented to the court

 

[Dan Daly]

There was an element of "Oh crap, we have to find this law constitutional somehow. I mean Bonnie and Clyde AND the St. Valentines Day Massacre." LOL

I don't have an issue with what the court ruled, as given the circumstances, they could not have honestly ruled anything else.

I disagree, they could have ruled that the arrest was a farce, which it was, and that the entire NFA was a farce, which it was, but oh well, can't change history.

Not without the evidence that a short-barrel shotgun was related to the efficacy of the militia.

Oh please, that evidence was available to anyone who cared to look.

The evidence was not presented to the court

Hmm, I wonder why. Seek and thee shall find out why.