Posted on 01/07/2005 9:56:54 AM PST by neverdem
SCOTUS did not dismiss the case for lack of standing - a requirement for the appellants to even be able to appeal - and then proceeded to issue an opinion stating the type of weapon was not used by the military. An erroneous statement of fact (as sawed-off shotguns were commonaly used by the military and police (riot guns)) taht most likely would have come out if the appellants had been their to brief/argue their side of the case.
The antis and the media miss the most important fact...SCOTUS 1) heard the case and 2) issued an opinion that implictly says if the firearms were of military utility that at the very least there would have to be further analysis of the interaction between the law in question and the second amendment...two procedural issues that would not arise if the appellants did not have standing to bring the appeal in the first place; i.e., that they did not have a second amendment right that was being impacted adversly by the law in question.
Yet the antis continue to mis-state Miller...something that their lawyers should be disciplined for - they are intentionally mis-stating the law of that case.
It matters big time. If you murder the defendants so they cannot defend themselves, nor their position, then the ruling in the case after this has no legitimacy whatsoever.
Their is no evidence the government murdered the defendants. We are talking about gangland individuals here...
their=there...never post before coffee.
Never said the government did it. Probably some political socialists, if anyone at all. The socialists during the 30's were nearly as extreme, if not more extremist, than the 60's and 70's socialists.
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.