Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Procedurally, Miller stands for the proposition that the second amendment is an individual right since Miller was successfully able to challenge the law all the way up to SCOTUS on grounds of a violation of his second amdendment rights.
Miller was not a "militia" member, yet SCOTUS reached the merits of the argument, therefore SCOTUS determined Miller had standing to bring the case. (Since Miller disappeared his side never briefed its case, so much of the Miller decision is based on only the government's arguments and is patently wrong - but that isn't the issue, Miller's standing is.)
Miller's procedural posture stands for the refutation of your position.
;)
Technically you're correct. Perhaps it would be more correct to say, "everyone would then be on notice by the U.S. Supreme Court that they have no protection against such infringments on the RKBA."
You will agree that property grabs by state and local governments have increased since Kelo despite the fact that, as you say, there was no protection before Kelo? Funny how that works, huh?
Let's not gloss over my main point with your technicality. State and local RKBA abuses would increase with a Kelo-type decision on gun rights by the U.S. Supreme Court if incorporated.
True enough. It's also covered pretty well in the plethora of decisions concluding a collective right.
I was curious, therefore, why the poster concluded that "it is clear as a bell that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the individual to bear arms".
Since you're not that poster, and since you really have nothing to add to the discussion (other than some vague reference to the decision), I think we're done.
Post 36 is a parody.
I would suggest you save your insults until you're sure of your facts.
Why? You never do.
L
Adios. Go insult someone else. On another thread.
Lurker, you know how I hate to be misquoted. I'll give you a pass this time, but be forewarned that I will hit the abuse button the next time you do this.
I never said Congress can regulate anything in the name of Interstate Commerce. I very clearly said, "the government can regulate the interstate commerce of everything".
If you disagree with that statement, and it sounds as though you do, then simply tell me what interstate commerce Congress cannot regulate. That shouldn't be too difficult for one who is so sure of their position.
George Mason said as much at the Virginia Ratifying Convention.
Glad to see one court finally "got it" that the collective right is protected by the individual right- it's not a case of one or the other.
Done already. Go back and reread my postings.
L
Of course, now the Supreme Court must understand this.
After January 20th 2009, the Supreme Court may look very different with several new justices leaning hard left.
The prosecutor brought the case to SCOTUS, not Mr. Miller. Neither Mr. Miller nor his legal counsel appeared in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Miller died before the decision was even reached.
"... on grounds of a violation of his second amdendment rights."
The lower court was vague -- they simply said the National Firearms Act violated the second amendment. They did not say why it violated the second amendment. They certainly did not say it violated Mr. Miller's individual right to keep and bear arms, as you claim.
"therefore SCOTUS determined Miller had standing to bring the case."
Again, the prosecutor brought the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court made no decision. They came to no conclusion. They never said the second amendment protected an individual right NOR did they say it protected a collective right.
They remanded the case back to the lower court with a question about the weapon's relationship to a well regulated Militia. Why would they be concerned about that relationship? What if the weapon had no relationship? What then?
I absolutely agree that the dicta from this decision is great for future incorporation. It's so great to see gun control stuck down and I'm excited at the prospect of seeing more in the future.
There was only one case in the 5th Circuit and only one case in the DC Circuit concluding an individual right. The 9th Circuit alone has a gazillion cases concluding a collective right.
The bottom line? We're not yet ready to have this heard by the USSC.
I understand that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is with Silberman on this ruling's logic--wouldn't that mean the we would have a slam-dunk at the SCOTUS?
I'm curious. What if a state decided they would maintain the citizen's arms and keep them in an armory to ensure their availability when needed? What if the state decided to provide the arms and keep them secure until needed?
How would that violate the second amendment?
Not there. You have nothing.
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.