Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Kourt: Cosmetic features can be banned, even if mechanism of action is in common use

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Kourt: Cosmetic features can be banned, even if mechanism of action is in common use

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...atform-rifles/

    If I were in charge, there would be no more negotiating with this rigged system. To the gallows with them all, televised.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    ‘are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun’ (James, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 677), which Miller concluded (with apparent approval from Heller) was outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.

    The Miller case basically said that a shotgun had no military value. Miller presented no evidence of a military using shotguns at trial AND the court did not give judicial notice to the fact that the US military indeed did use shotguns at that time.

    These stupid courts are going to start a civil war. Its was something Jefferson warned us about.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-22-2013 at 01:35 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ‘are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun’ (James, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 677), which Miller concluded (with apparent approval from Heller) was outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.

    The Miller case basically said that a shotgun had no military value. Miller presented no evidence of a military using shotguns at trial AND the court did not give judicial notice to the fact that the US military indeed did use shotguns at that time.

    These stupid courts are going to start a civil war. Its was something Jefferson warned us about.
    Miller wasn't even there.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ................a shotgun had no military value ???. Miller presented no evidence of a military using shotguns at trial AND the court did not give judicial notice to the fact that the US military indeed did use shotguns at that time............

    http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/wwiitms/TM9_285_1942.pdf .Shotguns, All Types I carried a twelve in SE Asia and in South Com.

    SECTION I. Introduction ..................... 1- 3 2- 9
    II. Winchester Shotgun, 12-Gage, M97. 4- 11 10- 37
    III. Winchester Shotgun, 12-Gage, M12. 12- 19 38- 58
    IV. Stevens. Shotgun, 12-Gage, M620A,
    M520, and M620.............. 20- 27 59- 87
    V. Ithaca Shotgun, 12-Gage, M37..... 28- 35 88-111
    VI. Remington Shotgun, 12-Gage, M10. 36- 43 112-136
    VII. Remington Shotgun, 12-Gage, M31. 44- 51 137-160
    VIII. Remington Shotgun, 12-Gage, Mll11
    and Sportsman ............... 52- 60 161-192
    IX. Savage Shotgun, 12-Gage, M720... 61- 69 193-223
    X. Stoppages and immediate action.... 70- 74 224-231
    XI. Special maintenance ............. 75- 78 232-235
    XII. Materiel affected by gas.......... 79- 82 236-238
    XIII. Ammunition ................... 83- 98 239-248
    XIV. References ..................... 99-100 249-250

    INDEX ..................................... 251-257

    http://www.machinegunboards.com/foru...howtopic=12542 shotguns, bayonets, and all kinds of shotgun goodies
    Last edited by MSG Laigaie; 10-22-2013 at 11:49 AM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    As SVG said, the court was rigged. No effort was made to defend and Miller wasn't even present, the verdict was a foregone conclusion.

  6. #6
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Luckily, this is irrelevant outside California...and anyone thinking that a CA court would rule differently is overdoing the medical wackyweed.

    At some point this will have to go federal.
    Last edited by carolina guy; 10-22-2013 at 11:44 AM.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    MSG ,

    Miller is a 1939 SCOTUS case... shotguns were new but the US Army had them. Miller court ruled that guns of military value are covered but since Miller (who never filed anything with SCOTUS-he was a pro se litigant) never produced any evidence that armies use shotguns and the court declined to take judicial notice of that fact and ruled the way it did.

  8. #8
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Miller is a 1939 SCOTUS case... shotguns were new but the US Army had them.
    I can't fathom what you mean here. Surely even you know that shotguns weren't new in 1939...
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    I can't fathom what you mean here. Surely even you know that shotguns weren't new in 1939...
    They were relatively new in military service, compared to other types of small arms ... I know they were not unheard of, SCOTUS did not.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    1. I doubt that the California court fully understood what the SCOTUS meant in Heller. I wouldn't worry about this ruling unless the makeup of the Supreme Court changes. The current court would change this ruling.

    2. The appeals court demonstrated the same lack of understanding of the 2A that all antis and many ignorant citizens do. The 2A is about the People being able to wrest power back from a tyrant, not just about hunting and self-defense.

  11. #11
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Miller wasn't even there.....
    Yeah, didn't miller represent himself pro se and he died after the SCOTUS accepted the case but before oral arguments, so the court only heard the government's side of the story.

    that should never have happened, the supreme court should've either appointed a competent attorney to represent Miller or dismissed the case.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    ... that should never have happened, the supreme court should've either appointed a competent attorney to represent Miller or dismissed the case.....
    But, Only if they desired a fair and impartial outcome, which was never the plan.
    (Not objecting to your post, just piling on about a bad Supreme Court decision.)
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 10-22-2013 at 05:18 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Shotguns were used by Americans in WWI. Shotguns were not new to the US Military in 1939.
    I carried a Mossberg 500A and a Remington 870 in Iraq.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  14. #14
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by decklin View Post
    Shotguns were used by Americans in WWI. Shotguns were not new to the US Military in 1939.
    I carried a Mossberg 500A and a Remington 870 in Iraq.
    In fact, they were used back in the War of Northern Aggression (AKA The Civil War) as well. Seems to me they were muzzle loading shotguns at the time, but shotguns none-the-less.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    But, Only if they desired a fair and impartial outcome, which was never the plan.
    (Not objecting to your post, just piling on about a bad Supreme Court decision.)
    Not all the Miller case was bad ... they made it clear that they had no evidence that shotguns had military value and that guided their decision. But they should have taken judicial notice ... that's what happens when one believes that guys in robes' votes are needed in respect to to rights...

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Yeah, didn't miller represent himself pro se and he died after the SCOTUS accepted the case but before oral arguments, so the court only heard the government's side of the story.

    that should never have happened, the supreme court should've either appointed a competent attorney to represent Miller or dismissed the case.....
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    But, Only if they desired a fair and impartial outcome, which was never the plan.
    (Not objecting to your post, just piling on about a bad Supreme Court decision.)
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Not all the Miller case was bad ... they made it clear that they had no evidence that shotguns had military value and that guided their decision. But they should have taken judicial notice ... that's what happens when one believes that guys in robes' votes are needed in respect to to rights...
    The case was bad, it does have dicta saying the RKBA applies to military weapons which makes the governments current argument that military weapons are not protected by the 2A ironic.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Imagine what would happen if courts dissected abortion or gay rights, the same way.

    The key here is to get rid of the politicians that confirm these judges and want these laws.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •