Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Heller Descision Excerpt

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post


    The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes

    the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it

    “shall not be infringed.” As we said in
    United States v.

    Cruikshank
    , 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right

    granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner

    dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The

    Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed...

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    I read the decision and the contradictions are amazing.

    Exactly how does the government get the authority to permit and license individuals to exercise a preexisting right that "shall not be infringed".

    However, this, in my opinion, is one of the most interesting paragraphs in the decision:
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
    Can someone help me understand this? Is he saying that the technology doesn't invalidate a citizens right to own military weapons? Or is he saying that the fact that technology make it impractical to allow citizens to posses military weapons not change the general interpretation of the right?


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    He's trying to argue that machine guns are constitutionally illegal since they aren't 'common'. Probably to gain some extra affirming votes. Machine guns make people pee their pants for some reason.

    This is easily combated since machine guns have been heavily taxed since 1934, pretty much when people started to buy them. Every AR15 in the country today would have a happy switch if not for the NFA (And now, the FOPA). Pretty common I'd think. Not to mention the 200-300k people that legally own machine guns despite the cost prohibitiveness and whatnot.

    I believe in one of the dissenting opinions this was brought up. The justice said something like (I paraphrase): "If a new type of powerful weapon were to be invented, the government better ban it quickly, so as to not allow it to become 'common' and therefor be protected by the 2nd amendment"

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    He's trying to argue that machine guns are constitutionally illegal since they aren't 'common'. Probably to gain some extra affirming votes. Machine guns make people pee their pants for some reason."
    If the weapon was Constitutionally illegal, then absolutely no one would have them. I actually read this as, Scalia saying that the Second Amendment DOES protect an individual right, but its not an unrestricted right... Like, "Look, we still have machine guns, but we generally restrict them for military use only."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    In my opinion when the 2A was written the common people were armed with the same guns and technology the military had possesion of. Therefore in order to have an effective militia to defend the Constitution and our rights against tyrants then the militia should have the same fire power as the tyrants their trying to defeat. From the way I take the Constitution at this moment the 2A shall not be infringed means just that. The feds can't put limits on a right we already had before the 2A was even written. So to put a limit and restriction on a right given to us at birth is kinda like saying how many breaths we can take or how long we can live!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    In my opinion the Heller opinion is the worst possible "pro"-2A outcome imaginable. It basically says the government cannot ban handguns outright, but leaves plenty of room for prohibitive taxation and registration schemes, and maintains other near-total bans on classes of weapons in common use by the militia! (Select-fire weapons, rifles with "evil" features, etc.)

    Upon reading Heller, I am absolutely disgusted, and frightened for the future of liberty in America. Rant off.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    HungSquirrel wrote:
    In my opinion the Heller opinion is the worst possible "pro"-2A outcome imaginable. It basically says the government cannot ban handguns outright, but leaves plenty of room for prohibitive taxation and registration schemes, and maintains other near-total bans on classes of weapons in common use by the militia! (Select-fire weapons, rifles with "evil" features, etc.)

    Upon reading Heller, I am absolutely disgusted, and frightened for the future of liberty in America. Rant off.
    Hold on just one minute. You said you read the whole decision right? How can you say this?

    The suit that was brought asked for relief from only two laws. 1st law was banning handgun possession in the home, the 2nd was banning having any guns in the home ready for immediate self-defense use.

    Heller did not sue to remove taxes, registrations, permit processes, background checks, or bans on class 3 or other weapons. He specifically wanted to keep his handgun in his home ready for use. And that's all the courts opinion addressed.

    The decision said that having DC agree to register his handgun and issue a permit to carry it in his home would give him the relief he requested. It did not say that permits and registration is constitutionally okay, it didn't address the constitutionality of the issue.

    The decision also did us a great service when it specifically defined the word "bear" to mean carry for use of self-defense. This means it is only a matter of time before there is a suit for the nation-wide right to carry.

    The decision conceded that automatic and military weapons can be banned because they are not in common use by citizens. But if this specific nuance is examined in court it will be obvious that they are not in common use because of excessive taxes. The premise that any weapon that is in common use by citizens leaves us open to having many restrictions reversed, like California's hi-cap ban.

    While it's not everything it could have been, I don't think Kennedy would have ever sided with an opinion that outright removed all gun control in this country. It's a step by step process and I don't think we could have had it any better.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    The decision conceded that automatic and military weapons can be banned because they are not in common use by citizens. But if this specific nuance is examined in court it will be obvious that they are not in common use because of excessive taxes.
    I'm not sure the taxes have that much to do with it. The real issue preventing them from being more common is the 1986 ban on registration of any new ones. If all that were involved were a $200 tax stamp on top of the price of the rifle, I'd own a select-fire AR-15 now.

    In any case, your basic point is dead on: When courts in future cases look at the details of this decision they're going to find that many weapons are uncommon only because they're tightly regulated, so any argument that they can be regulated because they're uncommon is circular and unsustainable.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    The decision conceded that automatic and military weapons can be banned because they are not in common use by citizens. But if this specific nuance is examined in court it will be obvious that they are not in common use because of excessive taxes.
    I'm not sure the taxes have that much to do with it. The real issue preventing them from being more common is the 1986 ban on registration of any new ones. If all that were involved were a $200 tax stamp on top of the price of the rifle, I'd own a select-fire AR-15 now.

    In any case, your basic point is dead on: When courts in future cases look at the details of this decision they're going to find that many weapons are uncommon only because they're tightly regulated, so any argument that they can be regulated because they're uncommon is circular and unsustainable.
    Breyer mentioned this in his dissent:

    "According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun. On the majority's reasonsing, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self-defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so."

    About the only thing I agree with Breyer in the dissent. The reasoning of 'in common usage' is circular and has lots of holes.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    It did not say that permits and registration is constitutionally okay, it didn't address the constitutionality of the issue.
    The majority opinion did say that such regulation is reasonable, which is what warrants my anger.

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues.
    Furthermore, excessive and draconian taxation schemes are what D.C. plans to do now that handguns are technically "legal". Due to federal law prohibiting the purchase of a handgun outside one's state, don't D.C. residents have to wait until a gun shop opens in the District proper? No such stores exist in D.C., and the District has already vowed to use taxation and zoning laws to keep them out or make running a gun store in D.C. prohibitively expensive. If you are a D.C. resident, you are still banned from purchasing a handgun.

    The Heller decision did very little immediate good for D.C. residents. Nationally, the only effect I see from Heller is the overturning of Chicago's ban. New York's ban, which is not a ban per se but rather expensive and time-consuming licensing and registration processes, is probably still valid under Heller.

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly hope I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing . . .

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    He's trying to argue that machine guns are constitutionally illegal since they aren't 'common'. Probably to gain some extra affirming votes. Machine guns make people pee their pants for some reason.

    This is easily combated since machine guns have been heavily taxed since 1934, pretty much when people started to buy them. Every AR15 in the country today would have a happy switch if not for the NFA (And now, the FOPA). Pretty common I'd think. Not to mention the 200-300k people that legally own machine guns despite the cost prohibitiveness and whatnot.

    I believe in one of the dissenting opinions this was brought up. The justice said something like (I paraphrase): "If a new type of powerful weapon were to be invented, the government better ban it quickly, so as to not allow it to become 'common' and therefor be protected by the 2nd amendment"
    Portable deadly lasers and linear accelerators are right around the corner.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    HungSquirrel wrote:
    It did not say that permits and registration is constitutionally okay, it didn't address the constitutionality of the issue.
    The majority opinion did say that such regulation is reasonable, which is what warrants my anger.

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues.
    Furthermore, excessive and draconian taxation schemes are what D.C. plans to do now that handguns are technically "legal". Due to federal law prohibiting the purchase of a handgun outside one's state, don't D.C. residents have to wait until a gun shop opens in the District proper? No such stores exist in D.C., and the District has already vowed to use taxation and zoning laws to keep them out or make running a gun store in D.C. prohibitively expensive. If you are a D.C. resident, you are still banned from purchasing a handgun.

    The Heller decision did very little immediate good for D.C. residents. Nationally, the only effect I see from Heller is the overturning of Chicago's ban. New York's ban, which is not a ban per se but rather expensive and time-consuming licensing and registration processes, is probably still valid under Heller.

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly hope I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing . . .
    D.C. residents need to become licensed collectors. FFL III C&R - curios and relics, then the handgun can be shipped to their house.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    HungSquirrel wrote:
    It did not say that permits and registration is constitutionally okay, it didn't address the constitutionality of the issue.
    The majority opinion did say that such regulation is reasonable, which is what warrants my anger.

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues.
    Furthermore, excessive and draconian taxation schemes are what D.C. plans to do now that handguns are technically "legal". Due to federal law prohibiting the purchase of a handgun outside one's state, don't D.C. residents have to wait until a gun shop opens in the District proper? No such stores exist in D.C., and the District has already vowed to use taxation and zoning laws to keep them out or make running a gun store in D.C. prohibitively expensive. If you are a D.C. resident, you are still banned from purchasing a handgun.

    The Heller decision did very little immediate good for D.C. residents. Nationally, the only effect I see from Heller is the overturning of Chicago's ban. New York's ban, which is not a ban per se but rather expensive and time-consuming licensing and registration processes, is probably still valid under Heller.

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly hope I'm getting my knickers in a twist over nothing . . .
    Well, first, representation for Heller (Mr. Gura) conceded that ifHeller could get a license, he'd have little if any standing to sue. It was the impossibility of obtaining a license to own a handgun that was most at issue; between that and the lock-up law, Mr. Heller had no practical way to use a firearm in defense of his own home. That was the question of issue before the Court, and they answered it; Mr. Heller has the right to possess a functional firearm, be it a handgun, rifle or shotgun, and keep it in his home in a state that allows him to rapidly deploy it. For D.C. to abridge this right is unconsitutional, and its laws must change to give him back that right.

    That is the breadth and scope of the actual decision. Licensing itself was not at issue; the licensing law was not overturned by this decision (obviously; DC's using it to be as infringing as the letter of the opinion allows). Other similar measures, such as the machine gun ban, were addressed but the Court expressed its wish that those cases be considered seperately and not be assumed to be struck down by Heller.

    The text of the opinion sought to limit the scope of its immediate application, but did not prohibit same; the opinion called other gun laws not at issue "presumptively constitutional", because they simply were not at issue and therefore the Court could not consider them to be anything but constitutional. It leftthat question open. Other challenges, such as the Chicago, San Fran and NYC handgun bans, stand a good chance of falling; if the SC strikes one down, that will IMO constitute de jure incorporation of the 2A. If such a decision does NOT do so, the likely challenge toaccomplish thiswill be forthcoming as the cities petition their State to codify similar bans for cities in State law.

    There are however some disturbing footnotes in the Scalia opinion; the currentCourt seems likely to uphold Presser and Cruikshank if the specific question presented before it relates to the 2A's application to State law.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    D.C. residents need to become licensed collectors. FFL III C&R - curios and relics, then the handgun can be shipped to their house.
    Even then, the handgun must be C&R eligible, and not an autoloader. (Those tyrannical bastards even ban semi-automatics of all types, so no nice, cheap Feg PA-63 imports for low-income D.C. families are possible.)

    So, autoloaders are banned, and all non-curio handguns are banned for D.C. residents until an FFL opens, which is unlikely to happen due to restrictive zoning laws. Essentially no handguns are legal in D.C. And for the few curios that are legal, who wants to bet D.C. will pass a "safety" ordinance requiring all handguns to have modern firing-pin block safety mechanisms, which predate most C&R handguns?

    I still maintain Heller has done essentially nothing for D.C. residents.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    HungSquirrel wrote:
    I still maintain Heller has done essentially nothing for D.C. residents.
    I would agree with you on that if you had worded it "nothing immediate"....I do feel that Heller may very well "set the stage" for more challenges in the near future though.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    I read the decision and the contradictions are amazing.

    Exactly how does the government get the authority to permit and license individuals to exercise a preexisting right that "shall not be infringed".

    However, this, in my opinion, is one of the most interesting paragraphs in the decision:
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
    Can someone help me understand this? Is he saying that the technology doesn't invalidate a citizens right to own military weapons? Or is he saying that the fact that technology make it impractical to allow citizens to posses military weapons not change the general interpretation of the right?
    He is acknowledging that the stated reason for the right not being infringed is the necessity of a well regulated militia, and going on to recognize the fact that in order for a militia to be "EFFECTIVE" its members may need such "sophisticated arms" as M-16s, but he is not deciding that now; he leaves that for future adjudication. In saying these things, he is contemplating future possibilities.

    Remember: the reason that Miller 's sawn off shotgun did not receive 2nd Amendment protection in 1939 was that it had not been proven by expert testimony in the trial court that such a mutilated"instrument" was useful to a militia. The 2A protects possession of WEAPONS -- not junk.

    David

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    OmSigDAVID wrote:
    He is acknowledging that the stated reason for the right not being infringed is the necessity of a well regulated militia, and going on to recognize the fact that in order for a militia to be "EFFECTIVE" its members may need such "sophisticated arms" as M-16s, but he is not deciding that now; he leaves that for future adjudication. In saying these things, he is contemplating future possibilities.

    Remember: the reason that Miller 's sawn off shotgun did not receive 2nd Amendment protection in 1939 was that it had not been proven by expert testimony in the trial court that such a mutilated"instrument" was useful to a militia. The 2A protects possession of WEAPONS -- not junk.

    David
    Well said David....that's kinda' the way I read it too

  18. #18
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    The decision conceded that automatic and military weapons can be banned because they are not in common use by citizens. But if this specific nuance is examined in court it will be obvious that they are not in common use because of excessive taxes.
    I'm not sure the taxes have that much to do with it. The real issue preventing them from being more common is the 1986 ban on registration of any new ones. If all that were involved were a $200 tax stamp on top of the price of the rifle, I'd own a select-fire AR-15 now.

    In any case, your basic point is dead on: When courts in future cases look at the details of this decision they're going to find that many weapons are uncommon only because they're tightly regulated, so any argument that they can be regulated because they're uncommon is circular and unsustainable.
    Breyer mentioned this in his dissent:

    "According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun. On the majority's reasonsing, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self-defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so."

    About the only thing I agree with Breyer in the dissent. The reasoning of 'in common usage' is circular and has lots of holes.
    Fascinating... Amendment II says to keep and bear arms.. Not to keep and bear common arms...
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Fascinating... Amendment II says to keep and bear arms.. Not to keep and bear common arms...
    The Supreme Court's only real restriction as to their opinions is stare decisis. Simply, there must be compelling reason to overturn a decision; they have only reversed themselves when logic does not offer any other choice but to do so.

    Miller has long held that the test of a "protected" weapon is one that has accepted military purpose, and is of a type in common use by civilians. The idea was that when the Framers wrote the 2A, they envisioned it to protect the rights of civilians to keep a weapon that they could, if needed, take to war. At the time, a military weapon and a hunting/home defense weapon were the same thing, but as of Miller, the advent of the machine gun and the autoloading rifle, neither of which were in common civilian use regardless of what gangster movies you've seen, had created a split between the types of weapons civilians kept and those that were effective for military purposes. Certainly by the time the GCA passed, that rift was substantial.

    Firearms technology has changed very little since then (The U.S. have used the M-16 since Vietnam and our adversaries have used the AK-47 since before Korea).WhatHAS changed is that those weapons are becoming more desireable for civilian use, largely home defense (hey, if SWAT trusts the M4when resolvinga hostage situation, why not use it to prevent one?). However, the number of semi-automatic AR/AK variants is still a small percentage compared to other personal/home defense options.

    So, back to stare decisis, there is no compelling overarching reason to overturn Miller and strike down the '86 ban; evidence points to the highutility of semiautomatic weapons even in military or paramilitary use, and thus banning automatic weapons leaves a very large board from which to pick your hunting, home defense, and/or personal defense weapons that even most gun owners would not call "infringing". One notable example is that the M4A1's fire selector options are safe, semi, and BURST, NOT full-auto. SomeM16s are full-auto, but the semi-automatic position is used more often as it is more ammo-efficient, which is the same reason burst was chosen over full auto when choosing the M4's receiver config, and the reason that semi is the first option on the fire selector as compared to the AK's. All of this says that even U.S. Army policy tends away from automatic fire for front-line grunts.

    All that being said, (*taking a gargle of coffee to get the taste out of my mouth*), I think that there are good reasons one might have an automatic weapon, and as the BATFE has prosecuted more people for malfunctions of semi-automatic weaponsthan it has done for people intent on using an automatic weapon to commit a crime, there is little evidence of a compelling government interest to ban them as it has not resulted in a significant reduction in crime. However, the Court must be faithful to Miller, and now to Heller which has reinforced that test by applying it to a current case. As such, a challenge to the '86 ban or to any other measure would have to provide compelling evidence that Miller is in fact wrong. Barring a foreign military invasion of U.S. soil, the necessity of overturning Miller would not be easily demonstrated in terms that the average American, to say nothing of four leftist Justices, would find applicable toAmerican dailylife.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    OmSigDAVID wrote:
    Remember: the reason that Miller 's sawn off shotgun did not receive 2nd Amendment protection in 1939 was that it had not been proven by expert testimony in the trial court that such a mutilated"instrument" was useful to a militia. The 2A protects possession of WEAPONS -- not junk.

    David
    Considering local militias are supposed to exist to both defend against foreign invaders and against tyranny, I feel sawn-off shotguns are in fact useful to a militia whose home territory has been occupied. It's a hell of a lot easier to conceal a sawn-off weapon from JBTs than it is to conceal a full-length rifle.

    Of course, this is an extreme scenario.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    Doesn't the Army use 'sawed off' remington 870s mounted on M16s? Google image search 'masterkey system'.

    Just sayin'

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    Indeed.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    Fascinating... Amendment II says to keep and bear arms.. Not to keep and bear common arms...
    The Supreme Court's only real restriction as to their opinions is stare decisis. Simply, there must be compelling reason to overturn a decision; they have only reversed themselves when logic does not offer any other choice but to do so.

    Miller has long held that the test of a "protected" weapon is one that has accepted military purpose, and is of a type in common use by civilians.
    I accept your analysis of Stare Decisis being prevalent in our SCOTUS decisions, but my interpretation is a bit different. Miller was a completely flawed case and was admittedly so during the Heller testimony. Sawed-off shotguns were used during the trench warfare battles of WWI and therefore have a military application. That is not to mention the numerous short barreled shotguns used in every military campaign since, including the current Iraq engagement.

    Miller may be one of the most poorly written decisions in history and shouldn't be considered prescedent when the case wasn't even argued to it's finality..


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    Fascinating... Amendment II says to keep and bear arms.. Not to keep and bear common arms...
    The Supreme Court's only real restriction as to their opinions is stare decisis. Simply, there must be compelling reason to overturn a decision; they have only reversed themselves when logic does not offer any other choice but to do so.

    Miller has long held that the test of a "protected" weapon is one that has accepted military purpose, and is of a type in common use by civilians.
    I accept your analysis of Stare Decisis being prevalent in our SCOTUS decisions, but my interpretation is a bit different. Miller was a completely flawed case and was admittedly so during the Heller testimony. Sawed-off shotguns were used during the trench warfare battles of WWI and therefore have a military application. That is not to mention the numerous short barreled shotguns used in every military campaign since, including the current Iraq engagement.

    Miller may be one of the most poorly written decisions in history and shouldn't be considered prescedent when the case wasn't even argued to it's finality..

    The point of the USSC in Miller, was that no evidence had been taken in the trial court to prove that in its mutilated condiction,that instrumentwas still useful to a militia. The 2A does not protecta right to possess useless junk; it defends our natural right to possess WEAPONS.

    The case was sent back down for more evidence to be taken, inasmuch as the trial court judge was in error in taking judicial notice that the sawn off shotgun was a weapon. That point shud have been proven by expert testimony. Defendants defauted in appearance; were never seen again.

    David

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    HungSquirrel wrote:
    OmSigDAVID wrote:
    Remember: the reason that Miller 's sawn off shotgun did not receive 2nd Amendment protection in 1939 was that it had not been proven by expert testimony in the trial court that such a mutilated"instrument" was useful to a militia. The 2A protects possession of WEAPONS -- not junk.

    David
    Considering local militias are supposed to exist to both defend against foreign invaders and against tyranny, I feel sawn-off shotguns are in fact useful to a militia whose home territory has been occupied. It's a hell of a lot easier to conceal a sawn-off weapon from JBTs than it is to conceal a full-length rifle.

    Of course, this is an extreme scenario.


    In HELLER, the USSC mentions that:

    "It may be objected[/b] that if weapons that are most useful

    in military service—M-16 rifles[/b] and the like—may be banned, [/b]

    then the Second Amendment right is completely detached [/b]

    from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,[/b]

    the conception of the militia at the time of the Second[/b]

    Amendment’s ratification was
    the body of all citizens

    capable of military service[/b], who would
    bring the sorts of

    lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty[/b].


    It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective

    as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms

    that are highly unusual in society at large."

    [emphasis added by David]

    David[/b]


    [/b]




Posting Permissions

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