Posted on 03/22/2008 12:02:27 AM PDT by neverdem
The Miller court implied that the NFA 34 was Constitutional for some arms and unConstitutional for others. Period. That's it. Oops, go no further than that.
The Miller court neither said, nor implied, nor hinted at anything else beyond that. If you want to read something into their decision, if you want to assume something beyond that, fine, you do that on your own.
It's similar to the right to vote or the right to assemble.
Are they in common use? Remember, 300 million citizens. Scalia is counting.
The U.S. Supreme Court will probably go along with the popular ones. But the high-powered, "assault sniper" rifles are way too dangerous, they're not that common, and they gotta go. Sorry.
Well, nothing. So what? Using Heller rules, nothing stops them.
Using the old Miller rule would have stopped them, but we threw that out to get handguns approved, remember?
Robert, can you logically expect that SCOTUS in 'DC vs. Heller' will arrive at your hysterical point above from the ruling in 'Parker vs. DC' below?:
Parker Vs. DC -- "... To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."
How does SCOTUS uphold the lower court and interpret the ruling above to take away our Sears-bought .22LR semi-automatics and AR-15s with the consolation that some security guard in DC gets to keep a handgun at home?
That's just so much BS. The Miller decision was binding on every Circuit Court of Appeals and has been used in various ways by virtually all of them. That it was "deficient" is not something I would argue with. But to claim that it was so devoid of content that a lower court could not make decisions on it, is to make a claim that virtually no lower court has ever made.
Some courts have liked it. Some have lied about it. Another has claimed that the Founders couldn't possibly have meant what the Miller Court said.
But none have them have suggested that the Court only "implied" things but decided nothing. In order to recognize a self-defense purpose for the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court will, of necessity, have to rule Miller inadequate. If our Founders intended to preserve, among other rights, the right to self defense with arms, then the Miller decision, that the only arms protected are militia arms, is WRONG.
And you are being very foolish to believe that such a ruling requires that the protection of militia arms be abandoned. That protection was justified, but the exclusion of other arms was not.
So if an individual is denied the right to vote, the Court can deny them standing because it is only a "collective right"? And if a person is arrested at an assembly, they can be convicted because they are only a "person" and not an "assemblage of persons"? You do know that is not the case, don't you?
The term "collective right" was invented by anti-gunners to try to explain away the language of the Second Amendment. Please cite the earliest use of the term you can find and how it doesn't pertain to the Second Amendment. Try to find the term in the writings of our Founders or in their most substantial product, the Constitution of the United States.
The quality of your discourse has plummeted recently. If you want to know how many rifles there are in the country, sneak into the woods in Pennsylvania wearing camo on the first day of hunting season. Wear some antlers on your hat.
I probably own a dozen rifles myself. Three of them are M1 Garand World War II battle rifles sold to me by the US government. I have read an estimate that there are 80 million gun owners in the nation and 280 million guns. How many do you think are rifles? Half? Probably.
Who are you and what have you done with the real robertpaulsen?
If the Miller decision did not protect the individual right to keep and bear at least some arms, then there will be absolutely nothing lost, no matter what the Supreme Court decides in Heller. As of today, the Congress of the United States has already infringed the right of the people to keep and bear machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, silencers, grenade launchers, and, until 2004, semi-automatic rifles with such lethal features as bayonet lugs.
People like you, who have supported the anti-gunners in their unConstitutional demonizing of any and all weapons and in reducing the Second Amendment to meaninglessness, are solely responsible for the need to bring Heller to the Supreme Court. Any downside to their decision is on your head.
Since you have posted this ad nauseum, you no doubt have at your fingertips a list of citations and sources to support your contention.
Would you direct this enquiring mind to those citations or sources?
Many thanks.
The problem is: if that’s really what the Founding Fathers meant, and was so implemented in law, we’d still be using muzzleloaders. New things are not common until they grow into commonallity. M4s can’t become “common” because 922(o) prohibits it, which by your view is constitutional because they are not common. The circular reasoning is stupid.
Do you really think the Founding Fathers meant “only those arms in common use”? or “anything that will facilitate defending against our enemies”?
There are no "Heller rules" yet. There is no verdict yet. All we've heard so far is rhetoric.
The Parker court applied what they called the "two-prong Miller test" to deterime if the "arm" in question qualified for second amendment protection.
(Remember, for the last 70 years, Miller was understood to protect "weapons suitable for use by a Militia".)
The "two-prong Miller test" is, 1) a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” AND 2) “of the kind in common use at the time”. (SCOTUS interpreted #2 as "of the kind in common civilian use at the time".)
Does your "Sears-bought .22LR semi-automatic" meet #1? Does your AR-15 meet #1 and #2? Hey, if they do, fine. Then they're protected and I'm wrong. Some liberal court may decide they don't meet the test. Then they're not protected by the second amendment.
Hey, don't cry. You got what you wanted -- a protected individual right to a handgun. With restrictions to be announced.
And by you. And by me.
But if the 1st Circuit says, "We hold, under the authority of Miller, that militia membership is blah, blah, well, that's the 1st Circuit's interpretation. That's different that you saying (in effect), "The Miller court concluded that Militia membership blah, blah. They did no such thing.
If YOU want to conclude that, fine. But you're on your own. Miller is no support, no justification, for that conclusion.
I made two statements. 1) We ALL have the God-given inalienable right to self defense and, 2) Prisoners, felons, illegal aliens, small children, the insane, foreign tourists, etc. aren't allowed to have guns.
You're confused by that? Do you doubt it? You need me to give you citations and sources to back up those statements?
Maybe you can be a little more specific, because I have no idea what it is you're looking for.
Did I say it as a "collective" right? Why are you putting words in my mouth? You know how I feel about that.
Once more and we're done on this thread. If the only way you know how to debate is to lie about what I said, there's no need for us to go any further.
As of today, those arms are regulated, not banned. Second, they're only regulated for civilians with no connection to a Militia. Third, today, the second amendment protects those arms from ANY infringement by the federal government for Militia members.
Under Heller, they may be banned (Gura's words) completely, for everyone, since they have no second amendment protection.
You call that "nothing lost"? Tell me. What would constitutionally prevent the federal government, under Heller, from calling for all privately owned machine guns to be sent to the federal government to be melted down? Compensation will be provided at 2X current market value. Failure to comply is a mandatory 10 year prison sentence (if caught).
Tell it to Scalia. He said it.
"Do you really think the Founding Fathers meant “only those arms in common use”?"
I believe the Founders meant to protect the arms used by a well regulated Militia. What, exactly, were those arms? That was up to each state to decide.
Today, the arms protected for individual Militia members would include everything an average soldier carries and uses in combat. Each state would decide where these weapons are stored -- in a state armory or at home.
Playing “devil’s advocate” does not mean one is actually, honestly, personally, seriously advocating for the devil. Oral arguments are a time for exploratory & rhetorical questions - they are not a final verdict.
If the Founding Fathers intended the state or the militia to have the right, they would have said so. They didn’t. They said “the people”, which does not equate to the state or the militia; overlap, maybe, but not equate.
If they wanted to protect the right for self defense and hunting, they certainly would have protected it for "all persons" or "all individuals" or at least "all citizens". They didn't. They protected it for "the people" who comprised less than 20% of the population, leaving 80% with no protected right to keep and bear arms.
Why would they do that? Seriously.
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.