[andyk]

The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.

It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.

[absolootezer0]

The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.
It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.

i though us v miller was over whether or not NFA '34 was constitutional, and defined what type of weapons were deemed appropriate for militia. and that the case itself only dealt with one specific weapon in the act and whether or not it had been used by the armed forces in combat. and still got it wrong.

[GrandEagle]

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Trying to remember......
This is an old argument put to rest by another SCOTUS ruling somewhere in the early 1900's. It seems that nowhere is the congress authorized to send the militia overseas, and in fact are very limited in what they can even call them up for. It ruled (could have been an opinion of the court) that the Guard is routinely sent overseas and therefore could not be the militia. It defined the militia as able bodied males withing a certain age range.
------ anybody remember anything about this? ------

GE

[Redcloak]

Miller, when read without any bias, doesn't say much at all about the 2nd Amendment. At issue was the status of a sawed-off shotgun. Could it be outlawed by the National Firearms Act of 1934 or was it protected by the Constitution? Miller and his partner were either on the run or dead when the case reached the Supreme court, thus no one represented their side before the Court. Since no evidence was presented to show this weapon's utility to the Militia, the Court could not rule one way or the other on the question of the Militia's use of such a weapon. The Militia in question is clearly the whole population with their own arms; not the National Guard. And had evidence been presented to show the sawed-off shotgun was a suitable weapon for Militia use, the NFA's restrictions against such guns may have been struck down.

This article is interesting, but the author needs to go back to the drawing board and get his facts straight.

[rellimpank]

The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.

--this is completely untrue.

Miller found that weapons used by the "militia" were protected and wrongly concluded that short-barrelled shotguns had not been used by said "militia" and therefore weren't protected---

[kAcknor]

It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.

Not just that. The "Old West" picture he paints has a whole lot more to do with Hollywood than it does with Deadwood. ;)

In spite of the Western dime novels that spawned the misconception, the west was a relatively quiet place to live outside of the Indian Wars and a few specific characters.