Strive For Balance In Gun Control

The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) ^ | 11/30/07 | Dan Cunningham

[tiger-one]

Like I said, FA are not illegal!

[robertpaulsen]

The Miller decision makes perfect sense if you simply extend the ruling to "only for members of a well regulated state Militia". Militia weapons for Militia members.

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.

[ctdonath2]

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.

[ctdonath2]

the 1st Circuit was attempting to put a square peg in round hole.

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.

[robertpaulsen]

"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 ..."

... 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?

[ctdonath2]

If there's any flaw in Miller it's that they didn't say "he's one of 'the people', and this thing is recognized by Congress as an 'arm' by the very nature of the NFA law in question, therefore Mr. Miller has a right to keep and bear it. Case dismissed." From the history of Miller I read, the chief judge was being pressured to rule in the gov't's favor, and under the circumstances the best he could do was open the door to evidence that the item in question was not (somehow) "militia suitable".

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.

[Don Joe]

Don't forget a good stance and hold.

Just so that you don't go too wide, of course.

[g,d&r]

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "Strive For Balance In Gun Control"

BALANCED
GUN
CONTROL

[robertpaulsen]

"BTW: the bit of my post you quoted was entirely about the [non-]relevance of Mr. Miller's militia activity. Nice evasion."

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.

[ctdonath2]

Why do you keep bringing up Mr. Miller?

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.

[ctdonath2]

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.

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.

[PhilDragoo]

The Good, The Bad, and Hillary vie for POTUS

[SunkenCiv]

[singing] Ka-boom, ka-boom, ya-dadadadadadadadada...

[robertpaulsen]

"Militia-type arms" is simply my abbreviation of the Miller court's, "weapons that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". The courts have interpreted that as weapons borne by the average soldier into battle. And the average soldier does not take a handgun into battle.

"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?

[bunkerhill7]

“Captain Mason, in 1637, was appointed a public military officer of the plantations of Connecticut to train ‘the military men thereof in each palantacon according to the days appointed and shall have ₤40 per annum to be paid oute of the Treasury quarterly. The pay to begine from the date of the day thereof, to train the said military men in every planatacon tenn days in every yeare, soe as it be not in July or August, giving a weekes warning beforehand. All persons to bear arms that are above the age of sixteen years, except those exempted. A magazine of powder and shot to be kept in every plantation for the supply of the military men, and every military man is to have continually in his house in readiness, “halfe a pounde of good powder, two pounds of bullets suitable to his peece, one pounde of match, if his peece be match-lock, and whosoever failes of his half-pounde of powder and two pounds of bullets and match to pay five shillings for every tyme that is wanting.” Later training in the plantations of Connecticut were reduced to six times in the year, and the General Assembly enacted that “there shall be in each Plantation within this Jurisdiction, every year at least six Training days, or days of public military exercise, to teach and instruct all the males above sixteen years of age in the comely handling, and ready use of their arms, in all postures of war, to understand and attend all words of command.”…p.101 “ The organization of these emergency men was continued for generations, and later they became the famous minute-men of the Revolutionary War.” P.100 http://books.google.com/books?id=gdULAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA73&dq=waterbury+david#PRA1-PA101,M1 "Ye Historie of Ye Town of Greenwich County of Fairfield and State of ..." By Spencer Percival Mead, Daniel M. Mead Chapter IX, `The Continental Army` Other sources: "History of Virginia", Howison, Robert R. "Plymouth Colony Records" "Records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony" "Colonial Records of Connecticut" The above was understood as the basis for the 2nd Amendment. My family has had arms above the fireplace since 1648 from Ipswich, MA to Ticonderoga 2007, never a question asked about the customary bearing of arms til now. The a priori practice of traditionally bearing arms for over 350 years gives the immovable heavy weight of thousands of patriot lead musketballs to the Second Amendment, and it shall not be ever moved.

[bunkerhill7]

“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.”

[bimbo]

Balance ?

OK ... The Supremes adamantly uphold and defend the First Amendment, so they should also uphold and defend the Second with the same vigor.

[Don Joe]

Let's see who's more cynical, shall we? :)

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.

[backtothestreets]

Well, if we’re not on the same page, we are certainly “reading” the same book! ;)

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.

[Don Joe]

---

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Ben 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.