Skip to comments.
Anti-Gun Groups Contest Individual Right to Own Firearms
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 6/18/02
| Jim Burns
Posted on 06/18/2002 5:20:10 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
1
posted on
06/18/2002 5:20:10 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks; *bang_list
"Every federal appeals court in the country, except two judges on the Emerson panel, has rejected the NRA view, and has held that the Second Amendment does not provide individuals with a right to possess firearms absent a relationship with a state militia," according to a statement from the Brady Campaign. They can't point to a single cases that supports that statement.
2
posted on
06/18/2002 5:28:09 AM PDT
by
MileHi
To: MileHi
cases = case
3
posted on
06/18/2002 5:29:22 AM PDT
by
MileHi
To: MileHi
Nope. The Miller decision isn't even a U.S Supreme Court directive as to how the Second Amendment holds in respect to the RKBA. In fact the Second Amendment has been the forgotten amendment in the Bill of Rights ligitation.
To: kattracks
The actions of the Supreme Court, the Brady Campaign stated, continued what it called "its unbroken string of defeats in Second Amendment challenges to gun laws."
I think I can be of help. I'll keep it real simple. ;-)
Criminals don't abide the law. That's how they earned the "criminal" label. They pay no attention to gun laws. The more guns you get the government to take away from law-abiding citizens the greater the probability that some criminal is going to shoot you or a family member. Is that clear enough for you?
5
posted on
06/18/2002 5:45:52 AM PDT
by
Zon
To: goldstategop
Correct. The Miller decision was a TAX matter.
To: Blood of Tyrants
If we get the senate we need, we'll get the high court we want and that will settle the point.
Bye bye Carnahan. Bye bye Wellstone.
To: kattracks
Brady makes a case based on "
...a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in which the justices said the Second Amendment protects only those gun rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation...of a well-regulated militia."To illustrate their misuse of that statement take the following illustrations:
In WW2 Britain's home guard (a militia) was to some extent at least armed with firearms sent across the ocean by American gun owners, acting as individuals and contributing their own property to a common defense. (That property has never been returned by the way).
And,
I have two WW2 era training rifles, one American and one British. The US version looks like an '03 springfield and was used to teach marching and drill. The Brit version fills the same needs but also includes a pin-on target, trigger mechanism, and a nifty little forked thingy that pops out and makes a hole in the target...
Meaning?
That in order to sustain a militia, or to train an army, the Brit's needed to explain the most basic elements starting with "bullet (forked thingy) comes out here (muzzle) and will eventually make a hole over here (piece of paper one inch away from the muzzle).
My point?
In the end, reasonable national self defense cannot hinge on a tiny cadre of soldiers and a mass of clueless laborers drafted and trained in skills they were never before allowed to consider...unless you have a close relative at hand and willing to send its own militia into the breach while you figure it out!
Way back in the origins of the (much villified) Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCMC) I believe the idea was that it was NECESSARY to have a significant number of civilians in the community who would be able to demonstrate and train others in the use of military/militia arms should the need arise. So far that need has not arisen, in part because those people are indeed out there.
(All we need to work out now is just how to arm a modern day militia with M-1's)
8
posted on
06/18/2002 6:20:30 AM PDT
by
norton
To: MileHi
Our Constitution says what it says, not what temporary, elected office holders and Black Robes say it says, so long as we retain our Bill of Rights - not much longer IMO. Corrupt socialism, aka fascism, is thriving in America throughout our ruling class. The rights of the people stand in their way, but our liberty is being interpretted away.
To: norton
"(All we need to work out now is just how to arm a modern day militia with M-1's)" Switzerland seems to have figured it out. They issue the "active militia" the most modern arms (full auto/select fire). The "inactive militia" gets the arms that are one generation older for the asking. This is pretty much what the "original intent" of the Civilian Marksmanship Program was. But who in the Federal government gives a hang about the original intent of ANY law OR the Constitution.
To: kattracks
"Thankfully, the justices do not share Attorney General John Ashcroft's enthusiasm for reinterpreting the Second Amendment," Nosanchuk added. Maybe Bush should threaten to increase the USSC to 15 seats, and pack the vacant positions with judges more to his liking. It worked for FDR, and gave him the Commerce Clause that made the Miller case possible.
To: SevenDaysInMay
Our Constitution says what it says, not what temporary, elected office holders and Black Robes say it says,Unfortunatly there are fewer and fewer who can read it and believe that it says whatever some "official" says it means.
so long as we retain our Bill of Rights - not much longer IMO.
I fear you may be correct. What will come first, the collapse of the Republic or Armaggedon?
12
posted on
06/18/2002 6:48:05 AM PDT
by
MileHi
To: kattracks
"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."How many times do we have to put their own quote in context? It really galls me that the only way for the gun-grabbers to make their point is to lie, distort, and misquote.
To: robertpaulsen
Its because they also own the media.
To: kattracks
The Miller case merely said that, "absent any evidence to the contrary" - since there was no defense present! - a sawed-off shotgun is not used in warfare, and therefore can't be considered a "militia weapon."
15
posted on
06/18/2002 7:41:26 AM PDT
by
Redbob
To: kattracks
"The Miller decision remains the law of the land and it continues to be followed in the lower courts," said Mathew Nosanchuk of the Violence Policy Center, a group that supports gun control.
Well! And all this time I thought the Constitution was the law of the land. Now I find out that a court decision is the law of the land. How about that!
To: philman_36
The Miller cause does address whether or not the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The justices had other issues on the table when they made the ruling. There are portions of the ruling which are pro-second amendment. Most importantly, the ruling rejects the view that militia is somehow the same as the National Guard. Instead, it defines the militia quite broadly to essentially include all citizens.
To: kattracks
Does the fact the Supreme Court did not take the cases in question suggest their is no majority on this question? If so, perhaps that was for the best. And it means, that the judicial appointments are the most important domestic action President Bush will make in his 4 or 8 years as Chief Executive. He must play hardball to get justices confirmed who will uphold the intent of the 2nd Amendment and will overturn Roe v Wade.
18
posted on
06/18/2002 8:03:38 AM PDT
by
Faraday
To: Austin Willard Wright
I was trying for sarcasm with Nosanchuk's quote. Looks like I failed. Maybe an /sarcasm was needed?
To: kattracks
From the article: 'In refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court cited as precedent the 1939 ruling in the United States vs. Miller case that said the Second Amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia." '
Can someone provide more complete information on this matter? I was not aware that the Supreme Court made any statement in refusing to hear the two cases recently denied cert.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson