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

Skip to comments.

Gun Control and the Constitution
Wall Street Journal ^ | February 10, 2013 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And ANDREW M. GROSSMAN

Posted on 02/10/2013 9:46:08 PM PST by neverdem

The courts would no more allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than the First.

Could there be a better illustration of the cultural divide over firearms than the White House photograph of our skeet-shooting president? Clay pigeons are launched into the air, but the president's smoking shotgun is level with the ground. This is not a man who is comfortable around guns. And that goes a long way toward explaining his gun-control agenda.

Lack of informed presidential leadership aside, there is a gulf between those Americans who view guns as invaluable tools for self-defense, both against private wrongdoers and a potentially tyrannical government, and those who regard that concept as hopelessly archaic and even subversive. For them, hunting is the only possible legitimate use of firearms, and gun ownership should be restricted to weapons suited to that purpose.

But while the level of the policy discourse leaves much to be desired, its constitutional dimensions are even more dimly recognized, much less seriously engaged. Yet the debate over guns, as is the case with many other contentious issues in American history, cannot be intelligently pursued without recognizing its constitutional dimensions. The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

After Heller and its follow-on case, McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment rights to the states, what government cannot do is deny the individual interest in self-defense. As a legal matter, that debate is settled.

The president and his allies seem to have missed the message, as demonstrated by his continued insistence that most of the American people, including many hunters, support his proposed gun-control measures. Even if that claim were true, constitutionally protected...

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; bhofascism; bloodoftyrants; criminalpresident; democrats; govtabuse; guncontrol; obama; secondamendment; tyranny; youwillnotdisarmus

1 posted on 02/10/2013 9:46:13 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Besides being our most noble emperor,he’s a professor of law! How could he POSSIBLY have missed the message???/sarcasm;)


2 posted on 02/10/2013 9:57:52 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Lying POS who resides at 1600 Penn Ave. has decided he will unilaterally reduce our nukes to 900 (for now) without a treaty or Senate approval on the action. By “informal agreement” with the Russians. Nuts.

Now, what does the Constitution say about nukes? See how evil Obozo is.

Commie Dems: “We don’t need no stinkin Laws!”

And where are those in DC defending the nation as they swore in their oath of office?

Remember the part about “protect and defend the Constitution”?


3 posted on 02/10/2013 10:00:01 PM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sorry I failed to post the link:

Obama to Renew Drive for Cuts in Nuclear Arms (ours)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2987270/posts


4 posted on 02/10/2013 10:08:19 PM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
~United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)


5 posted on 02/10/2013 10:08:26 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
Too bad Miller couldn't show up. Being dead made it problematic I suppose.
6 posted on 02/10/2013 10:14:26 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Mabe he is shooting the skeet while the clay is still in the launcher?


7 posted on 02/10/2013 10:16:22 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; Repeal The 17th
Too bad Miller couldn't show up. Being dead made it problematic I suppose.

True -- And it's too bad the court wasn't aware that shotguns had been used in WWI trench-clearing.

8 posted on 02/10/2013 10:21:24 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

As to people in Washington D.C. defending the Nation you can stop at Brennan the Muslim right after Obama the Muslim.


9 posted on 02/10/2013 10:26:52 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I have a Winchester 1897. It will sweep quail and dove as well as Heinies.
The barrel has mellowed over the years into a beautiful brown.


10 posted on 02/10/2013 10:27:00 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; OneWingedShark

“When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918,
the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government
asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches.
The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns
of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers.
The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot.”
~Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War (1919)
-
America’s munitions 1917-1918:
Report of Benedict Crowell(Google eBook):
http://books.google.com/books?id=3XcMAAAAYAAJ&hl=en
-


11 posted on 02/10/2013 10:55:05 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

LOL!


12 posted on 02/10/2013 11:03:14 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

I have my Fathers long tom 97 shotgun. It has a 32 inch barrel and my dad would wait for everyone else to stopp firing at pheasants and then he would raise his shotgun and drop the bird everyone else missed


13 posted on 02/11/2013 1:06:16 AM PST by South Dakota (shut up and build a bakken pipe line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The bottom line is that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to make any law concerning firearms or weapons of any kind and that includes background checks. In fact, the Constitution expressly forbids it from making such laws in the Second Amendment

Furthermore, if the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states as most liberals claim, then state governments are prohibited from making such laws also.
14 posted on 02/11/2013 2:04:00 AM PST by DangerZone (If the left had their way, all of America would be as safe as Sandy Hook Elementary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Ironic, but Miller just may play a pivotal part in establishing how “Assault Weapons” are specifically protected under the 2A.


15 posted on 02/11/2013 2:34:39 AM PST by Wildbill22 (They have us surrounded again, the poor bastards- Gen Creighton Williams Abrams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Al Qaeda in the White House.


16 posted on 02/11/2013 3:03:10 AM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Very well said.


17 posted on 02/11/2013 3:36:39 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
It is interesting that the Left tries to use the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment to claim that 1. it isn't an individual right and 2. we don't need militias anymore, so the right to bear arms is archaic and irrelevent. The problem is that the word "regulated" in current parlance means "controlled" but during the 18th Century it meant "trained", as in knowing the loading drill and basic military maneuvers. That is why full-time troops were known as Regulars.

We still need a militia, since our neighborhoods are still potentially under threat from gangs in some places and we still have natural disasters where an organized defense is important against looters and other criminals. In time of major war, militias would provide well-trained shooters to our armed forces - essentially as we have always done befoire. I'm sure that the Left understands all of this but their desire to utterly enslave everyone overcomes them.

18 posted on 02/11/2013 4:03:57 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

>>The president and his allies seem to have missed the message<<

Elmer Fudd didn’t miss the message; he does what he damn well pleases. NOBODY is willing to call him out; so he keeps on ignoring the Constitution, the courts and anybody who stands up to him.

We are still waiting to resume drilling in the Gulf, after a judge ordered that Elmer Fudd had no authority to stop the drilling. Oil companies are too afraid; wildcatters are too afraid; everybody is too afraid.

Welcome to Acirema, land of the enslaved and home of the cowardly.


19 posted on 02/11/2013 4:05:15 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The courts would no more allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than the First.


But.....but.....but that was back before the courts were stacked by a liberal Congress pandering to the will of Marxist presidents.


20 posted on 02/11/2013 4:10:49 AM PST by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

I want my M16.


21 posted on 02/11/2013 4:14:37 AM PST by ctdonath2 (3% of the population perpetrates >50% of homicides...but gun control advocates blame metal boxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
"Obama to Renew Drive for Cuts in Nuclear Arms (ours)"

Interesting timing from our Communist-in Chief: North Lorea is announcing new nuclear tests, is also testing missiles that can range us and they have put out a video showing an attack on one of our cities - while the Iranians are now finally announcing that they to are ready field nuclear weapons (instead of developing peaceful nuclear power as they had so steadfastly claimed).

Oddly, the MSM failed to pick up on this timing.

22 posted on 02/11/2013 4:14:59 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I wonder where these little bad boys fall...

http://www.racembac.com/bowmag.html

If I lived in Chicago or New York a crossbow with a few of these would be a good home defense option.


23 posted on 02/11/2013 5:02:50 AM PST by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
"Ironic, but Miller just may play a pivotal part in establishing how “Assault Weapons” are specifically protected under the 2A."

Just as the following supreme court cases played a "pivotal part" in establishing the Usurper into office:

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

24 posted on 02/11/2013 5:07:34 AM PST by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

“The courts would no more allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than the First.”

If this is the case, then why, since at the very least Sandy Hook, has no one from the Supreme Court explained to the “dear leader” that this agenda, this campaign, to infringe upon the citizens is non-Constitutional, and therefore NOT going to be certified by the court...

Much less the people, who WILL (and are choosing to) resist, and are already opposing this agenda...

I find the silence to be more damning, than supportive of its just potential, to stave off these oppressions...

It does illustrate, that the opposistion to our liberties is hedging its bets that we (at least some of us) will fight back with every means at our disposal...

What a poor (and sad) decision on their part...


25 posted on 02/11/2013 5:10:08 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

“The Bow Mag has the most lethal killing power of any arrowhead on the market for big game and nuisance animals.”

Hehehe, “nuissance animals”...I believe we can come up with a few of those...


26 posted on 02/11/2013 5:15:37 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

First, you must bring suit against the president and then let it proceed up the chain. When it is brought to their attention, in a formal and legal manner, the SCOTUS can react.

Legal reality does not include off the cuff jibberjabber


27 posted on 02/11/2013 5:15:47 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

“Miller” is bull$hit.
‘Abscence of evidence’ was ‘absent’ simply bcause there was no arguement on the other side.
The blunderbuss (for One) had a LONG history in warfare from the very first instances of the FLINTLOCK!


28 posted on 02/11/2013 5:16:30 AM PST by Flintlock (TRUTH--It's the new hate speach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frank_2001; All

Sure, he got the message...And it was rejected...

I wonder why our side of the political spectrum can’t seem to learn the same lesson...Instead of trying to be nice and compramise with the Kalif-in-Chief...


29 posted on 02/11/2013 5:18:12 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

I meant, “will NOT fight back...

apologies...


30 posted on 02/11/2013 5:21:20 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

We are losing because our side refuses to acknowledge we are in a war.

“When you are in a war—when you think of yourself as in a war—there is no middle ground. Radicals perceive opponents of their causes as enemies on a battlefield, and they set out to destroy them by demonizing and discrediting them. Personally. The politics of personal destruction is an inevitable weapon of choice for radicals. If your goal is a just world, then the moral code you live by requires you to wage war without quarter.” p. 32, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, by David Horowitz, Freedom Center.


31 posted on 02/11/2013 5:57:26 AM PST by charlie72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: charlie72

Sure...The Gauntlet has been thrown down...

I hope there are enough of us willing to pick it up...

“What are YOU prepared to do about it??? And, what are YOU prepared to sacrifice for your beliefs???”

It has always been a rhetorical, gut-check type question, not requiring an answer in a public forum, such as this...

The opposition understands this and will do what they can to keep the “trigger” from being pulled on one fail swoop...It’ll be subtle, because a lot of us have different thresholds of tolerance and our reactions to that stimuli will be different...And applied differently...

And maybe that aspect (difference) is to our advantage, from a certain viewpoint, and the reason why the opposition wants to lump all of us and our potential into one breadbasket and deal with us in-masse, because somehow they believe that will benefit them and their efforts...


32 posted on 02/11/2013 7:06:27 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
The McDonald case was redundant, except for the fact that the federal courts routinely applied the Presser case for the opposite proposition that it states. There is an aversion to revisit that, seeing as how a few hundred citizens were incarcerated over the decades. The courts have no pants. RKBA jurisprudence is riddled with intellectual corruption, and probably "power preserving" corruption, too. The courts are as legitimate as the Mafia - which means I'll probably do what they say, because if I don't, they will kill me.

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment], prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [parade permit laws] do not have this effect.
Presser v. Illinois - 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
33 posted on 02/11/2013 7:34:40 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
-- Ironic, but Miller just may play a pivotal part in establishing how "Assault Weapons" are specifically protected under the 2A. --

Scalia rewrote the Miller decision, when he composed Heller. Now, the constitutional test is whether or not a weapon is in common use. Illogical as can be. Anyway, Hamblen was convicted of possession of machine guns, and his appeal was based on the disconnect between Miller, as it is was written, and Miller, as interpreted by Scalia. The federal Circuit Court of Appeals just blew off the argument by not addressing it, and took Scalia's "in common use" test.

Since machine guns are so highly regulated, they are not in common use. Hamblen's conviction was upheld.

Don't look to the courts for meaningful help. Also, post-Heller, a federal circuit court of appeals found a ban on 10 round magazines to be constitutional. SCOTUS denied cert.

34 posted on 02/11/2013 7:39:52 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

Remember, though, that “legal precendent” is pretty much always a one-way ratchet to the left.


35 posted on 02/11/2013 7:40:05 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock
-- "Miller" is bull$hit. --

The Miller case is okay. What's a crock is the way it has been applied, again, for the OPPOSITE of what it stands for. Courts get away with this, because not many people read the precedents and find out the courts rationale is bogus. That is, the courts lie about the law.

The SCOTUS remanded the case to the court below, with (coded in legalese) instructions to obtain evidence. If the evidence showed a sawed off shotgun had a militia use, or was useful for the common defense, then the dismissal of the charge was to be reinstated, and the 1934 NFA (tax on firearms) was to again be held an unconstitutional infringement of the RKBA.

36 posted on 02/11/2013 7:46:48 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
No, the Miller case was BS. The court went out of it's way to not make a real decision when the decision they should have made was blindingly obvious. It held that if a short barreled shotgun couldn't be found to have use in military service, it was perfectly legal to ban machine guns (which obviously were in military service). What is (or was) in use by the military has no bearing on the operative phrase of the 2nd amendment, which the court knew and ignored in order to perpetuate the power of government.

It has since been watered down further by the "common use" idiocy of Scalia who is supposed to be "conservative". There is no logic to the arguement that "Machine guns aren't in common use, so it's ok to keep them banned even though they are only banned by unconstitutional means".

37 posted on 02/11/2013 9:37:30 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Durus
-- It held that if a short barreled shotgun couldn't be found to have use in military service, it was perfectly legal to ban machine guns (which obviously were in military service). --

Here is what SCOTUS said (link to opinion and briefs) ...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. ...

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

It seems to me that the holding of Miller is that if a weapon has a military use, and both short barrel shotguns and machine guns emphatically do have such purpose, then it is unconstitutional to so much as tax their acquisition and possession. "Any part of ordinary military equipment" is yet another category of arms that the Miller case held as out of reach of regulation.

The Miller case was subsequently read for the OPPOSITE of what it says, by Circuit courts who were asked to uphold subsequent convictions.

Circuits courts also read the Presser case for the OPPOSITE of what it allows states to do. It's easy to do - just cherry pick a sentence out of any opinion, and assert this is the principle.

Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States.
Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.2005)

the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

Plenty of people blame the Presser case for what subsequent courts did with it, and the same is true with the Miller case.

When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, the courts are bald-faced liars.

38 posted on 02/11/2013 10:16:31 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I was being a bit sarcastic but ultimately the USSC dropped the ball on Miller. Yes, lower courts allowed people to then lie about the case making it even worse. Had the USSC done it’s job correctly it never would have come to that.


39 posted on 02/11/2013 10:48:34 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Durus
-- Yes, lower courts allowed people to then lie about the case making it even worse. --

The parties appearing before courts always spin their side to best advantage. My observation is that it is the courts themselves that are liars. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, the courts are a corrupt institution.

40 posted on 02/11/2013 10:55:12 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
This illustrates why the notion that SCOTUS has the final word on what is Constitutional is absurd.

SCOTUS, like the other branches, is part of the Federal Government and has the same motive to preserve and expand its power. And in aggregate, the decision of SCOTUS have expanded the reach of FedGov and diminished liberty at least since Wickard. Thanks in part to them, there is nothing limited about FedGov and a great deal of what it has inserted itself into is certainly not enumerated.

I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that the FedGov is a creature of the States rather than their heavy handed master.

41 posted on 02/11/2013 12:02:53 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
Mark Landsbaum: Don't panic about global warming

Baby Talk - Do low fertility rates spell economic collapse?

The War Against Black Men

The Root Cause of Gun Violence

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

42 posted on 02/11/2013 12:24:40 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


43 posted on 02/11/2013 9:41:13 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

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