Posted on 07/06/2007 4:34:01 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
The Militia references are solely to support the prosecution's argument -- that the types of weapons protected by the second amendment are only those weapons suitable for a Militia. How else is he to make his argument without referencing the Militia, or the military, or the common defense?
And only one sentence of those seven mentions a connection between the weapon and membership in a Militia. One sentence in the entire brief and you think that's an argument for Militia membership?
Taken out of context, sure, why not. In context, however, and reading the entire brief, anyone can see that the thrust of the prosecution's argument is that only Militia-type weapons are protected.
I agree with you about the draft during times of crisis although we must declare War- not these undefined conflicts.
Maybe Bush’s Supreme Court appointees will decide the issue in the correct manner. The basic right to defend ourselves.
Take care
Because the Supreme Court ruled that MILLER could be prosecuted under NFA 34 IF the prosecution could prove that the shotgun was not a militia-type weapon. If the prosecution had proceeded it may well have been that the prosecution would decide that it could not prove that the weapon is not militia-type and thus they would have to drop the case for lack of evidence that a prosecutable crime had been committed. Lacking evidence that the specific shotgun possessed by Miller was not militia-type, then the prosecution would have to drop the case.
But the prosecution had no authority to require militia membership of Miller or anybody else. They had argued before the Supreme Court for such a finding and it was NOT GRANTED.
A significant part of the prosecution's brief is an attempt to challenge the scope of the Second Amendment by use of common law rulings which concern themselves with WHO had a right to keep and bear arms of any type and what activities they might carry out while bearing such arms. That is in support of the argument in the summary that only people in an organized militia are protected.
In postings in other threads you have stated that the Supreme Court IGNORED this argument of the prosecution. Now you claim that the argument doesn't even appear.
I will repeat the sentence you claim is out of context: "Indeed, the very language of the Second Amendment discloses that this right has reference only to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people as members of the state militia or other similar military organization provided for by law. "
Notice that this sentence contains no suggestion that there is any limitation on the type of arms used by people who are members of the state militia or other similar military organizations. The sentence is claiming that ONLY such people are protected, regardless of the arms possessed. It is an argument entirely separate and distinct from the argument that the possession of only some weapons is protected.
What a load of BS. It was in support of the type of arms protected -- Militia-type arms. That's exactly how the Miller court read the argument and that was exactly what their ruling was based on.
For you to say the prosecution was arguing that only people in an organized militia are protected is pure wishful thinking, unsupported by fact.
"In postings in other threads you have stated that the Supreme Court IGNORED this argument of the prosecution."
Yes, they flat-out ignored any "argument" that only people in an organized militia are protected. There was no such argument. It's in your head. You cannot support it. The Miller court ruling on the type of arms protected is proof.
"The sentence is claiming that ONLY such people are protected, regardless of the arms possessed."
Yes. And other sentences claim that military members are protected. Other sentences claim that people collectively are protected for their common defense and security. Other sentences claim that the protection is for public defense purposes.
Now, instead of taking that one sentence out of context, as is your wont, you instead put all of the sentences together, it becomes clear that the Founders had the security of the collective public in mind, meaning that the type of arm needs to be suitable for this purpose.
The prosecution said, "If these general powers of the government are restricted in regard to the right to keep and bear arms, the limitation, to whatever extent it may exist, will be better understood, and more clearly seen, when the object for which right is supposed to have been retained, is stated."
In other words, if the government can infringe some arms and not others, it's important to state why. And that's what the prosecution did.
What a strange web these socialists weave, - when their intent is to deceive.
That web is supported by the key deception of claiming that Miller supports a "collective right", a term which I am confident our Founders would not recognize, especially as applied to the Bill of Rights.
The anti-gunners future hangs on a slender thread that will be forever broken by a Supreme Court decision affirming Parker. If the Supremes rule that the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, then who can make the claim that it is not "fundamental", given its prominent position in the Bill or Rights.
That fundamental nature triggers the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rest is just a mopping up operation of challenging the nationwide tyranny of shifting the burden of ineffective "crime-control" onto the backs of law-abiding gun owners.
These men claim that 'We, -as a society', decide which rights we will protect --- And if 'We' choose not to protect your right to do [whatever], so be it. If and when a majority of the people decide that we should protect a right, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.
--- For instance, if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.
Thats because the Republicans at the top of the food chain are closet liberals. These Rockefeller Republicans curse them all.
Oldy but goodie bump.
The socialistic line on misinterpreting the 2nd never changes.
The U.S. Constitution [Misinterpreted] Online
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168296/posts?q=1&;page=1
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.