Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sig226
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.

14 posted on 12/29/2006 5:12:05 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell
They kicked it back to the lower courts because there was no evidence, there were no arguments. The appeals court pronounced the National Firearms Act unconctitutional on its face.

"A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment."

As no facts were presented during the appeal, there were no facts to provide the evidence the Supreme Court desired when they said, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show . . ."

To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court can't just announce that it wants a case to be heard another time becuase they want more information. Hence they reversed it and remanded it.

22 posted on 12/29/2006 10:29:14 PM PST by sig226 (See my profile for the democrat culture of corruption list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: William Tell
"but the Court disagreed with the prosecution's other argument that only militia members are protected."

Did they disagree? Or were they silent? Big difference.

24 posted on 12/30/2006 5:16:55 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson