Posted on 12/04/2007 12:56:01 AM PST by neverdem
Like I said, FA are not illegal!
But the 1st Circuit was attempting to put a square peg in round hole. You can't take Miller and apply it to individual civilians -- it makes no sense. Doing so forced the 1st Circuit to dance around and say Miller can't be a "general" rule.
No, not like you said.
You’re making a blanket statement, willfully avoiding a major caveat.
NFA-registered pre-’86 MGs are legal.
MGs which are not NFA-registered and/or are post-’86 are illegal.
You can’t lump ‘em all together and declare the whole mass “legal”.
It’s like saying “mushrooms are edible!” Well, yeah, so long as you stick to the ones that won’t kill you, and are aware that some of the edible ones are wildly hallucinogenic.
That obviously doesn't work well, and usually messes up both the peg and the hole.
You can't take Miller and apply it to individual civilians
Why not? In a pinch, anyone can contribute to the security of a free state if allowed to equip themselves appropriately.
The court took no notice of whether Mr. Miller was a militia member or not; they were only concerned with whether the item in question was militia-suitable. If there was the slightest inkling that Mr. Miller's militia membership was a relevant question, it would have most likely have brought up immediately! Seeing as there was no question that he was a professional thug, and "militia activity" plainly had nothing to do with the possession of arms, resolving the case would have been a trivial matter of saying "if one does not 'keep and bear' an NFA item in relation to militia activity then 2nd Amendment protections do not apply, lower ruling reversed, case closed." ...BUT, they didn't: instead, they completely ignored Mr. Miller's militia relevance as if [gasp] the 2nd Amendment obviously protected an individual right of all individuals, and focused solely on the item in question.
... to keep and bear ONLY Militia-type arms.
Uh-huh. That makes sense to you? As a civilian, I can own a full-auto submachine gun but not a single-shot .22 rifle?
I see no problem with anyone owning anything in the full range of arms, as by definition they are useful tools pursuant to "the security of a free state", which I contend includes each individual being able to protect their tiny bit thereof (to wit: it's my job to at minimum protect 3/300,000,000ths of this nation - me, wife, child).
You, rp, are the one seeking to limit the 2nd Amendment by drawing a line of protection between a full-auto submachine gun vs. a single-shot .22 rifle (good luck, as even the military use the latter for training and silent ops). YOU make sense of it.
BTW: the bit of my post you quoted was entirely about the [non-]relevance of Mr. Miller's militia activity. Nice evasion.
Just so that you don't go too wide, of course.
[g,d&r]
BALANCED GUN CONTROL |
What else was your post about BUT Mr. Miller's relationship (or non-relationship) to a Militia?
The case before the Miller court had nothing to do with Mr. Miller and everything to do with his weapon. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether or not Section 11 (the tax stamp provision) of the NFA violated the second amendment. Period. It's right there in the case. Plain as day. Read it. Do you want a link? Would you like me to quote it word-for-word?
The case was NOT whether or not Mr. Miller could possess the weapon. NOT whether the second amendment protected an individual right or a collective right. NOT whether or not Mr. Miller was a member of a Militia.
Why do you keep bringing up Mr. Miller? Tell me the relevence of Mr. Miller to the decision.
"You, rp, are the one seeking to limit the 2nd Amendment by drawing a line of protection"
Substituting the Miller court's definition of arms into the second amendment we'd have:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear only Militia-type arms, shall not be infringed."
And you insist that means everyone. And that if I have a weapon that has no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", (and the 7th Circuit Court ruled that handguns fit that category), then that weapon is not protected. Rocket launchers I can have. Handguns I can't.
Not I. The first reference to Miller in this thread was in #20, which you promptly jumped all over in #37 and proceeded to argue about for some time before I weighed in.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear only Militia-type arms, shall not be infringed."
And you insist that means everyone. And that if I have a weapon that has no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", (and the 7th Circuit Court ruled that handguns fit that category), then that weapon is not protected. Rocket launchers I can have. Handguns I can't.
Yes, I insist that means everyone (sigh, yes excluding the incompetent and incarcerated). And I agree with courts that find handguns are "militia-suitable" (the US military has bought a LOT of them), and contend that any attempt to restrict "arms" as such inherently admits they are "arms" which are thus protected by the 2nd. I contend that all arms are inherently militia-suitable; the very term "arms" admits militia suitability, as ANYTHING socially deemed primarily a "weapon" can be used as such (acknowledging some are highly specialized or outdated). I contend that your rewording of the 2ndA to include "only Militia-type arms" is redundant: all arms are militia-suitable, as even muskets and shuriken will serve in a pinch.
So yes, I contend you can have both a rocket launcher and a handgun - even as many as you like.
I'll go so far as to contend that under my notions of the issue, nobody (sigh, yes excluding the incompetent and incarcerated) is restricted in any way from contributing to the security of a free state - which, as indicated by the prefix to the 2ndA, is the main point of Constitutional interest in that right. YOU, however, seek to limit "people" and "arms" and "militia" ad nauseum to a degree whereby the government (at some level) is allowed to inhibit people from contributing to the security of a free state. ...now, which end do you think the Founding Fathers had in mind?
And I'll even take it one farther: anyone who seeks to limit the scope of "people" and "arms" and "militia" ad nauseum does so primarily to subjugate the people to the will of the government, creating an "us vs. them" situation (where the Founding Fathers wanted "e pluribus unum") that casts all individual citizens/residents at large in an antagonistic light, treating people in general as suspected enemies of the state, instead of members of the state who as a unified body strive to protect the security of a free state, of which every one of them is a part.
[singing] Ka-boom, ka-boom, ya-dadadadadadadadada...
"I contend that all arms are inherently militia-suitable"
The United States Supreme Court in Miller disagreed. If they agreed, they would not have made the distinction. And I say they made the distiction for a reason.
"So yes, I contend you can have both a rocket launcher and a handgun - even as many as you like."
Well, of course. If you believe the second amendment protects an individual right, then it must include all arms. And it negates the need for the first part of the second amendment. It also ignores the original meaning of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" and assigns to it a 21st century definition (there's that living constitution again).
"anyone who seeks to limit the scope of "people" and "arms" and "militia" ad nauseum does so primarily to subjugate the people to the will of the government"
I'm saying the second amendment limits the scope of "people" and "arms" and "militia". Your personal, individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by your state constitution. "Subjugate the people to the will of the government" -- a bit over the top, aren't you?
You know the rest, in books you have read,
How the British regulars fired and fled,
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall;
Chasing the Redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to merge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
OK ... The Supremes adamantly uphold and defend the First Amendment, so they should also uphold and defend the Second with the same vigor.
What I expect to see is a decision that on the one hand, affirms that the 2nd Amendment applies to "the people" as individuals -- and then goes on to "clarify" it by asserting that this right can be "reasonably regulated" by the state (in practice, in any way it deems reasonable).
Thus, they will wash their hands of the whole affair, having pleased everyone (so to speak). Nothing will change, other than the end of the quest for an official acknowledgement of the "individual right" basis.
I expect this, because this is how government seems to operate these days. For example, the "[U-]CAN SPAM" act, which was touted as a spam relief law, but was in reality little more than a blueprint for HOW to spam, and get away with it. It was a spam-legitimization law -- the exact opposite of what was needed, and of what was requested (but, the exact dream come true for the fat-pocketed lobbyists who own "our" government).
It seems that there is a one-way ratchet mechanism, which guarantees that all significant legislation will restrict individual rights, increase -- and consolidate -- the power of the state, and serve the interests of well-heeled lobbies which are in practice "the real owners of the country."
The most cynical component of this stuff is that it is inevitably couched in terms of "individual liberty" and whatnot, even though the net effect is quite the opposite.
So, yeah -- I expect the SCOTUS to "affirm the individual right" interpretation -- and, I expect them to do so in such a way as to once and for all eviscerate it.
I see nothing short of a populist movement by voters at the polls that offers any chance of rescuing the country. In that vein of thought, I find it increasingly interesting the one candidate that is rallying a populist movement is also the target of a great amount of negative comments. It leaves me wondering why all the attention on a candidate that is garnering no more than 5% in polls among Republican voters. I am of course referring to Ron Paul. The quantity of shots taken at him seems unwarranted, unless of course, he is seen as a real threat to politics as usual.
I will cannot cast a vote for him in the primaries as I am not registered to vote with any political party. I will be watching his every move after the all the Republican debates and most all the primaries are out of the way, which is coming soon. I’ve no doubt where Ron Paul stands on all issues of individual rights. All the other candidates leave themselves waffle room.
The breadth of individual rights issues Citizens across the nation have with the government does open the door to the possibility of bringing together people with very different gripes with government under one tent. For now, I am in a wait and see mode.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin FranklinBen was such a diplomat. He neglected to comment on what they would deserve. Deserving or not there is a natural consequence to surrendering liberty and the means to defend it.
No, the expression is self-defining. If they don't deserve liberty or safety, then it is quite clear that what they do deserve is the absence of liberty and safety, namely, servitude and danger.
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.