“GOD GUNS & GUTS MADE AMERICA FREE”

American Heritage Magazine ^ | February/March 1978 | John G. Mitchell

[neverdem]

Here's a long, moldy oldy. Happy New Year!

[neverdem]

BANG!

[ozzymandus]

I remember Harlon B. Carter. Good man, RIP.

I'd bet that figure of 150 million guns in private hands has probably doubled in the last 30 years. I know collectors who own hundreds of guns, and lots of non-collectors who own a dozen guns. It doesn't take long to acquire a safe full.

[pissant]

any body ping the guy yet?

[Joe Brower]

[NonValueAdded]

Bump!

[absolootezer0]

good article.. and its the same age as I am (feb '78)

[PeterFinn]

“GOD GUNS & GUTS MADE AMERICA FREE”

And atheism, gun control, and "tolerance" will make us slaves.

[ZULU]

Hey!! They stole part of my tagline!!!!

Great article!!!

Remember: Friends don't let friends vote for JulieAnnie!!!!

[Lurker]

It doesn't take long to acquire a safe full.

Tell me about it. I'm trying to work a second safe into the budget for 2007.

L

[Smokin' Joe]

bttt

[sig226]

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled only once in this century on questions of law arising from the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, heard in 1939, the court restricted its opinion to the narrow issue of whether, under the National Firearms Act of 1934, a sawed-off shotgun could be considered a proper weapon of the militia. The court opined: “[W]e cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” In a recent pamphlet on the Second Amendment, the NRA said of the Miller decision: “The High Court was unaware of the fact that some 30,000 shotguns, including a great number of ‘sawed-off’ shotguns, were purchased by the U.S. Government for use in World War I as ‘trench guns’.…”

The Supreme Court absolutely did not say that and Mitchell should never have used that statement in that way in this essay.

The Supreme Court said, "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."

They said this because Miller never argued a case at the appellate level. The apeals court in Arkansas never asked for any argument from Miller, they agreed with his brief and ruled that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional on its face. There was no evidence submitted to the court in Arkansas for the Supreme Court to consider. It was a summary judgement.

The Supreme Court did not render an opinion at all in this case. What they ruled was: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded."

Remanded means that the case was sent back to the lower court to for another hearing.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

[blackie]

Keep Your Shot Groups In The Bullseye!

[William Tell]

sig226 said: The Supreme Court did not render an opinion at all in this case. What they ruled was: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded."
Remanded means that the case was sent back to the lower court for another hearing.

The Supreme Court did not render an opinion regarding the usefulness of a short-barreled shotgun, but deciding matters of fact is not a function of an appeals court. The Supreme Court most certainly DID render a binding opinion regarding the law. As a matter of law, the Supreme Court decided that the lower court could not dismiss an indictment for violating the NFA 34 without considering that some arms may not be protected by the Second Amendment. [Note that I disagree with the Miller Court.]

"Reversed", however, means that the decision of the lower court does not stand. The lower court was most certainly NOT entitled to just repeat its prior decision. Rather, the Supreme Court pointed out that a decision regarding the protection of the Second Amendment in Miller's case depended upon the usefulness of a short-barreled shotgun to a militia. There was no expectation that the lower court consider Miller's membership in a militia.

The Supreme Court agreed with one of the prosecution's arguments, that the possession of only some arms are protected, but the Court disagreed with the prosecution's other argument that only militia members are protected.

[Noumenon]

Roger that. Mine's more than full.

I may not have enough guns to start a war, but I do have enough to finish one.

[BuffaloJack]

We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever
faced mankind, and if we lose that war, and in doing so
lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with
the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose
did the least to prevent its happening.
- Ronald Reagan, 1964

[neverdem]

sig226, thanks for the Findlaw link for UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).[bookmarked]

How Lieutenant Ford Saved His Ship

Farewell to Maj. Megan McClung, USMC

Is Conservatism Finished?

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[FreedomPoster]

Of course, Reagan was talking about Communism. But those words are directly applicable today, with the threat posed by Islam.

[BuffaloJack]

No Kidding.
Reagan's statement was valid applied to communism in the 60s and is just as valid applied to the strugglew against the muzzies some 40+ years later.
I'm glad someone besides me appreciates these words spoken by a man who would later be the most popular US President in history.

[Chode]

GUN PORN...!!!