• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Biden on Google+ Hangout today (1/24) at 1345

Tess

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
That's 1:45 PM for some of you. If you're a google+ user:

Before Vice President Joe Biden introduced a set of ideas to help reduce gun violence, he kicked off a national conversation. He wanted to make sure that he heard from people from every perspective about the steps we need to take to protect kids and make our communities safer.
And that dialogue isn't over.
Today, in a hangout hosted by Google and moderated by Hari Sreenivasan from PBS NewsHour, Vice President Biden will speak with a group of Google+ users about the White House policy recommendations and answer their questions. And we want you to join us.
What: Google+ Hangout with Vice President Joe Biden
When: Thursday, January 24 at 1:45 PM ET
Where: Live on WhiteHouse.gov
Of course, he does't want to reduce gun violence; he wants to reduce gun rights. Perhaps we can help him see his error.
 
MagiK_SacK

MagiK_SacK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
257
Location
VA Beach, VA
Here is a good segment from the event, one that stand out to me.

The on thing in it (out of many) that kills me here, and I think should kill his credibility too, is when he goes to say (at the 2:00 mark) that the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restrictions can be placed on who can own, and WHAT KIND OF FIREARMS can be owned. Now I know he is right about the first part. That can be clearly read in the Heller v. DC ruling. I cannot find any decision that says it is reasonable to restrict what kind of firearms can be owned. Furthermore in the United States v Miller decision this excerpt can be found:

"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.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were EXPECTED to appear BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES and of the kind IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME."

So in short, as applied to the 2A, if you are called up for service in the militia you are expected to show up with your own firearm that is in common use at the time. Is it just me or aren't these so called "assault riffles" that are being attacked common arms of our time??

Maybe I'm reading this with a bias but I truly hate misinformation. So if anybody reads that court decision differently, or knows of one that allows for the restriction of types of firearms please let me know.
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Militia, does not refer to the common citizen, sitting around at the house, watching Family Guy.

Heller speaks to total ban, not restrictions.
 
MagiK_SacK

MagiK_SacK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
257
Location
VA Beach, VA
It looks to me that the Supreme Court that decided on United States v Miller would beg to differ. From my quote above - "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Civilians being those that are not a part of the standing military.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ed+states+v+miller+decision&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47


Sorry I should have said that differently. Yes Heller did speak to total ban. In the opinion they strengthen the government’s ability to place certain restrictions. "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." So it should have been said that Heller gave affirmation to the government to restrict firearms to an extent.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...trict+of+Columbia+v.+Heller&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47
 
Freedom1Man

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
sudden valley gunner said:
Of course statist judges believe in restrictions.

Stop letting oligarchs in black redefine words. Militia is the armed citizenry.
Click to expand...

Besides with the Miller case the judges said they could tax a short barreled shotgun because they could not see any military use for it. Implying that if there is a military use for a weapon then it cannot be taxed or prohibited.
 
Lasjayhawk

Lasjayhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
289
Location
Las Vegas
Freedom1Man said:
Besides with the Miller case the judges said they could tax a short barreled shotgun because they could not see any military use for it. Implying that if there is a military use for a weapon then it cannot be taxed or prohibited.
Click to expand...
+1

And keep in mind that Miller won in the district court. The government appealed. Miller's lawyer didn't want to go to DC as he was not going to get paid, so the SCOUTS only heard the governments side of the argument.
 
Freedom1Man

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Lasjayhawk said:
+1

And keep in mind that Miller won in the district court. The government appealed. Miller's lawyer didn't want to go to DC as he was not going to get paid, so the SCOUTS only heard the governments side of the argument.
Click to expand...

Isn't that double jeopardy?

Once a person is found not guilty when the government charges them then that is it, game over.
 
Lasjayhawk

Lasjayhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
289
Location
Las Vegas
I *think* the purpose of the appeal was to try and keep the '34 firearms act in place. If so they got what they were after.

SCOTUS found the shotgun restriction to be ok and remanded the case back to the district court, but by that time Miller was dead (he was shot and killed by the way) so nothing ever happened.

Miller was not a LAC, he was a hard core criminal.
 
Freedom1Man

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Lasjayhawk said:
I *think* the purpose of the appeal was to try and keep the '34 firearms act in place. If so they got what they were after.

SCOTUS found the shotgun restriction to be ok and remanded the case back to the district court, but by that time Miller was dead (he was shot and killed by the way) so nothing ever happened.

Miller was not a LAC, he was a hard core criminal.
Click to expand...

That does leave the door open to challenge the law again still.
 
Lasjayhawk

Lasjayhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
289
Location
Las Vegas
I may have also used an incorrect term when I said Miller won. The case was in fact dismissed by the district court, the defendants jawbone demurrer to the indictment, holding that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was unconstitutional was upheld by the judge.

In fact Miller and Layton (his pardner in crime) had both pleaded guilty, but the judge got them to withdraw their pleas and get counsel. Methinks Judge Ragon wanted a chance to find the NFA34 unconstitutional.

Some info on Miller: http://rkba.org/research/miller/miller.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top