Is there any doubt wher Kerry get's his anti-gun views?

Congressional record ^ | 3/8/04 | Self

[Blood of Tyrants]

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
-- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.

"There is, however, no right to place military-style assault weapons into the hands of terrorists and/or criminals who wish to cause American families harm. There is no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America. For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military"
--Senator John Kerry, March 2, 2004 on the floor of the Senate, stating his opposition to "assault weapons"

[Blood of Tyrants]

Heard someone mention Kerry's statment the other day since it sounded so familiar, I thought I would look it up and see who it matche with.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The link is to the Congressional records website. Kerry's statement appears on the lower part of the lefthand column.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S1963&position=all

[Paradox]

Sorry, I just dont buy these comparisons to Nazis. OVerdone by the other side, I don't see the need for our side to engage in it.

[sgtbono2002]

Kerry gets his gun opinions from the same place he gets all his opinions, from having Ted Kennedys hand up his butt working the string that controls the dummy's mouth

[Blood of Tyrants]

You don't? Did you know that the 1968 Gun Control Act was a direct translation of a Nazi law?

Neil Knox believes it

So does Keepandbeararms.com

Here are the google results

[Texas Federalist]

Sorry, I just dont buy these comparisons to Nazis. OVerdone by the other side, I don't see the need for our side to engage in it.

There is a difference between accusing a leader of Nazi bigotry and historically comparing U.S. policies to a socialist regime to see if we are headed down the same road. I do not think this post is meant to label Kerry a Nazi, but to illustrate that all governments that eventually went on to oppress its people have first disarmed them. This is a valid historical comparison rather than mud-slinging.

[RedMonqey]

"There is no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America."

I f the 2nd isn't a"right to have access to the weapons of war"
then WHAT THE HELL IS IT FOR?, Senator?

Hunting?

Skeet shooting?

[DMZFrank]

The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was '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."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance 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.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

[punster]

bump

[Travis McGee]

BANG!

Where did the liberal 'rats ever get the crazy idea the 2A is about the right to shoot mallards and white tails?

Don't they realize it's about the ability to deter or defeat tyrants?

Actually, I think they do understand this very well. And their plans of leading us forciby to their socialist utopia requires that we be divested of all militarily useful firearms.

[Texas Federalist]

Good post about Miller directly contradicting Kerry's statement.

A note to add on the oft spun case of Miller: the case held only that the court could not find a sawed off shotgun to be a military or "militia" weapon without the presentation of evidence, leaving open the argument that ALL weapons may be used for a military purpose. Because the defendant was not present at trial, he presented no evidence supporting the fact that a sawed off shotgun had a military purpose.

Also, the law in Miller was only a TAX on firearms, rather than a prohibition. The Supreme Court implied that even a tax on firearms might be unconstitutional under 2nd Amendment.

[William Tell]

Texas Federalist said: "Because the defendant was not present at trial, he presented no evidence supporting the fact that a sawed off shotgun had a military purpose."

And I thought that there had never been a trial because the original trial court dismissed the case on Second Amendment grounds, which the government appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then remanded the case, presumably to the original trial court, with guidance which would have resulted in an acquittal because a short-barrelled shotgun is useful to a Militia.

Many of us agree that this case has been misused by many judges and prosecutors. It would be helpful in explaining this to the uninformed if I could be less uninformed myself. Can anyone definitively say just what the legal steps were in Miller?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Try this google search

[El Gato]

Neither J F'n Kerry nor the SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz are/were anti-gun. They are/were anti arms rights. Never forget that. They don't mind guns, as long as they control the people with them.

[Tunehead54]

I'm convinced - thanks. (Bump)

;-)

[El Gato]

Because the defendant was not present at trial, he presented no evidence supporting the fact that a sawed off shotgun had a military purpose.

Not quite. There was no trial. The federal district judge quashed the indictment before the trial on the basis that the law violated the second amendment. Miller, his lawyer, the NRA, nobody was present at the Supreme Court to argue his side of the case at the Supreme Court. After the Court ruled, Miller was dead, and his co-defendent, Layton, plea bargained and got probation. Thus there were no "further proceedings" as ordered by the Court, where such evidence could be shown and such argument made.

[El Gato]

A collection of documents relating to the Miller case, including the text of the decision itself, can be found at the NFA list site. Very well researched, and without some of the misstatements of fact one finds on many sites.

[El Gato]

Of particular interest is the brief of the government. It contains many of the same arguments against the "standard model" of the second amendment that we continue to hear today. The Court basically ignored most of them, and ruled very narrowly on the basis that the district court should not have taken "judicial notice", of the fact that a short barreled shotgun bears any relationship to militia purposes. They did not rule that it did or did not. Basically they ruled that the lower court was just a bit "quick on the trigger", so to speak. :)

[wku man]

What is the RKBA for? For implementation at the end of Claire Wolfe's "awkward period". That's what causes Kerry, Hilldebeast, Dasch-hole, et al, so many sleepless nights.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!