Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: On Miller vs. US and its implications

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    On Miller vs. US and its implications

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    When I read parts of Miller and discussed it with a co-worker (quite knowledgeable) back in the early 90's, the meaning was not what the anti groups present. The decision was based upon what was believed to be a firearm which would have purpose and valid use as a military arm for militia. The court did not find that a "sawed off" shotgun fit this description. If one were to take the court at its decision, and more importantly the Founders views, then arms which are subject to military use must also be available to citizens for their own use (arms meeting the definition common in the late 1700's). So Miller had nothing to do with the collective concept nor did it have anything to do with gun control.

    Now I could be wrong about this, but that was, and I suppose still is, my understanding of this case. The book, "Unintended Consequences" goes into some depth about this case and the surrounding events.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 04-09-2011 at 08:25 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Regular Member DevinWKuska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spanaway
    Posts
    300
    Hmm personally I cant think of any "good" reason to own a sawed off shotgun unless your intent is to spray a crowd, or execute someone from 3 ft away. However, although I firmly believe in the 2A, I would be concerned if all small arms that the military used were legalized. The thought of a few BG's running around with a .50 cal machine gun is disturbing.

    Keep in mind though that when the 2A was created there were only rifles and a very few handguns. They did not mean/intend/ or even know about some of todays brutally efficient firearms such as the 20mm rifle. I can only hope that if they had knowledge of todays arsenal limitations would have been set forth. In the time of the Civil War the differance between the military's weaponry and the weapons available to the general public varried very little barring of course the large cannons. To date I am still under the impression that the general populace were not in possesion of cannons(although wouldnt that be a cool lawn ornament?).
    "So there I was between a rock and a hard place, when it hit me... What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    59

    Miller vs US

    We need to remember that when Miller vs US was argued before the Supreme Court that only the Government was represented. Miller were nowhere to be found and Miller's lawyer was unable to argue the case due to time and money constraints.

    With no evidence to the contrary; the court had no choice but to accept whatever BS argument that the government put forth.

  5. #5
    Regular Member bom1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Chesterfield County , USA
    Posts
    114
    It seems to me I've read some rubbish from someone in the Brady crew arguing that the 2A only applies to flintlocks. I guess some buy that.

    I can think of a great reason to own a sawed off shotgun. It's not as long as a long shotgun.
    Last edited by bom1911; 04-09-2011 at 10:47 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by RedRuger View Post
    We need to remember that when Miller vs US was argued before the Supreme Court that only the Government was represented. Miller were nowhere to be found and Miller's lawyer was unable to argue the case due to time and money constraints.

    With no evidence to the contrary; the court had no choice but to accept whatever BS argument that the government put forth.
    Do you have something new to contribute? From the post: "With no representation to the Supreme Court, Miller and Laytonís case was argued entirely by one side Ė the governmentís. Knowing this, the Supreme Courtís decision was not surprising:"
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by DevinWKuska View Post
    Hmm personally I cant think of any "good" reason to own a sawed off shotgun unless your intent is to spray a crowd, or execute someone from 3 ft away. However, although I firmly believe in the 2A, I would be concerned if all small arms that the military used were legalized. The thought of a few BG's running around with a .50 cal machine gun is disturbing.

    Keep in mind though that when the 2A was created there were only rifles and a very few handguns. They did not mean/intend/ or even know about some of todays brutally efficient firearms such as the 20mm rifle. I can only hope that if they had knowledge of todays arsenal limitations would have been set forth. In the time of the Civil War the differance between the military's weaponry and the weapons available to the general public varried very little barring of course the large cannons. To date I am still under the impression that the general populace were not in possesion of cannons(although wouldnt that be a cool lawn ornament?).
    Hmm personally I cant think of any "good" reason to own blog publishing software unless your intent is to libel a party, or incite treason. However, although I firmly believe in the 1A, I would be concerned if all publishing abilities that the press used were legalized. The thought of a few idiots running around spouting their opinions is disturbing.

    Keep in mind though that when the 1A was created there were only printing presses and hand-written pamphlets. They did not mean/intend/ or even know about some of todays brutally efficient publishing means such as the internet. I can only hope that if they had knowledge of todays speech capabilities limitations would have been set forth. In the time of the Civil War the differance between the press's or government's publishing capability weaponry and the capability available to the general public varried very little barring of course the large for-hire presses. To date I am still under the impression that the general populace were not in possesion of printing presses (although wouldnt that be a cool lawn ornament?)
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member DevinWKuska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spanaway
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Hmm personally I cant think of any "good" reason to own blog publishing software unless your intent is to libel a party, or incite treason. However, although I firmly believe in the 1A, I would be concerned if all publishing abilities that the press used were legalized. The thought of a few idiots running around spouting their opinions is disturbing.

    Keep in mind though that when the 1A was created there were only printing presses and hand-written pamphlets. They did not mean/intend/ or even know about some of todays brutally efficient publishing means such as the internet. I can only hope that if they had knowledge of todays speech capabilities limitations would have been set forth. In the time of the Civil War the differance between the press's or government's publishing capability weaponry and the capability available to the general public varried very little barring of course the large for-hire presses. To date I am still under the impression that the general populace were not in possesion of printing presses (although wouldnt that be a cool lawn ornament?)
    touche'!

    Hmm your posting looks familiar!
    "So there I was between a rock and a hard place, when it hit me... What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    To date I am still under the impression that the general populace were not in possesion of printing presses (although wouldnt that be a cool lawn ornament?)
    Your entire post was very nicely done, Tawnos! Great tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to the anti-gunners' sentiments.

    As for personal printing presses, actually, I do have one, and it'll even print on both sides! My HP LaserJet 1320 will print up to 22 pages per minute, which is a darned sight faster than Benjamen Franklin's presses... Combined with a scanner and a word processor, I can write, print, and post (via thumbtack on the bulletin board next to our apartment complex's mailboxes) a single-page bill (public letter), complete with a picture, in less than 10 minutes.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Miller is one of the most misquoted, misunderstood decisions of all time. It is not anti-2A, and is extremely narrow in scope. It is also poorly written and subject to he said-she said. Thankfully, it is now obviated as to its most damning anti-RKBA application.

Posting Permissions

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