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

To: EdReform
"The test suggested in Miller is unworkable when applied to modern gun control statutes ... This test points directly toward protection of standard-issue infantry rifles like the fully automatic M-16 and might even be read to include more lethal weapons like rocket launchers. "

The author want to throw out Miller because the opinion of the court doesn't fit his interpretation of the second amendment. How utterly convenient.

Yeah, the Miller court concluded that only Militia-type arms are protected by the second amendment. Assuming that these arms are only protected for Militia members, the court opinion makes perfect sense.

The author, however, believes the second amendment protects an individual right outside of a Militia. But, when applying Miller, we end up with "an individual right to keep and bear Militia-type weapons like rocket launchers.

Uh-oh. Better scrap Miller.

14 posted on 03/17/2008 11:50:30 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/district_of_columbia_v_heller/

Miller’s definition of the “Militia,” then, offers further
support for the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Attempting to draw a line between the ownership and use of “Arms” for private purposes and the ownership and use of “Arms” for militia purposes would have been an extremely silly exercise on the part of the First Congress if indeed the very survival of the militia depended on men who would bring their commonplace, private arms with them to muster. A ban on the use and ownership of weapons for private purposes, if allowed, would undoubtedly have had a deleterious, if not catastrophic, effect on the readiness of the militia for action. We do not see how one could believe that the First Congress, when crafting the Second Amendment, would have engaged in drawing such a foolish and impractical distinction, and we think the Miller Court recognized as much.


15 posted on 03/17/2008 12:01:07 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers, all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

Well I got a question for you: If the Court upholds the collective rights theory and says that only organized militias can keep and bear, how about the unorganized militia spoken of in the USC? And further, what would prevent a group of private citizens from forming a militia, and therfeore keep their RKBA?


25 posted on 03/17/2008 2:02:08 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

Which is why the Second Amendment stated ‘Arms’, not ‘Firearms’. Arms included cannon, and ships capable of carrying cannon and armed troops during those times.

Arms now would include a Boston Whaler with the option of attaching a machine gun, or two.


29 posted on 03/17/2008 2:48:27 PM PDT by wastedyears (More Maiden coming up in a few months!)
[ 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