Kavanaugh: The Right To Keep And Bear An AR-15 Shall Not Be Infringed

Flopping Aces ^ | 07-12-18 | Daniel John Sobieski

[Ancesthntr]

First off, the Court did say that the government had the power to tax (or, at least, didn’t say that it didn’t, because of the militia arms thing). I agree with you that it IS an infringement - the tax was equivalent to about $5,000 today, and there was a Depression in full swing at the time. It was calculated to basically price the average person out of the market - with either the rich not caring (and they generally didn’t go around shooting up banks or fomenting revolution), and the criminals caring less. Once again, a law aimed at the law-abiding, the only ones who would both obey and care. What if they put a $50,000 tax on today, would that infringe? You betcha!

FYI, that analysis that I read indicated that the District Court judge ruled as he did, because he WANTED that case kicked upstairs, and wanted the result that later came down. He was a New Dealer, and had previously been a Congressman who supported gun control. Here’s what the article had to say:

---

“The newspapers assumed Miller was a “test case of the National Firearms Act.”109 They were probably right. The government needed a Supreme Court precedent holding that federal gun control does not violate the Second Amendment. Ragon teed up the case. Ragon did not really think the NFA violated the Second Amendment, and probably colluded with the government to create the ideal test case. His opinion is peculiar on its face, begging for an appeal. A memorandum disposition is appropriate when deciding a routine case, but not when holding a law facially unconstitutional. And Ragon was the first judge to hold that a federal law violates the Second Amendment, even disagreeing with a Florida district court that had dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to the NFA.110

Before he became a judge, Ragon represented the Fifth District of Arkansas in Congress from 1923 to 1933.111 As a congressman, he was a vocal advocate of federal gun control. In 1924, Ragon introduced an unsuccessful bill prohibiting the importation of guns in violation of state law,112 and vigorously supported another bill prohibiting the mailing of most pistols, which eventually passed in 1927.113 Basically, Ragon wanted to prohibit firearms used by criminals, including pistols.114 “I want to say that I am unequivocally opposed to pistols in any connection whatever. If you want something in the home for defense, there is the shotgun and the rifle, but a pistol is primarily for the purpose of killing somebody.”115 And he specifically dismissed Second Amendment objections to federal gun control. “I cannot see that violence to the Constitution which my friend from Texas sees in this bill.”116 If Arkansas could prohibit pistols, so could the United States.117 A prominent Democrat, Ragon endorsed Roosevelt in 1932 and helped push the New Deal through the Ways and Means Committee.118 In
return, Roosevelt made him a district judge.119 The NFA was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal program, enacted with broad support shortly after Ragon took the bench.120 But the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was stirring up popular opposition, much of it based on the Second Amendment.121 The government needed to silence the complaints, and Miller was the perfect vehicle. Ragon
had presided in an O’Malley [the O’Malley gang, of which Miller was a part] prosecution, so he knew Miller was a crooked, pliable snitch, who wouldn’t cause any trouble. And Gutensohn was a comer who knew the game and got his due. Ragon’s memorandum opinion presented no facts and no argument.
With no defense muddying the waters, it was the government’s ideal test case.

[William Tell]

"If Arkansas could prohibit pistols, so could the United States."

Very interesting. Thanks.

Arkansas probably had a "right to keep and bear arms" in its state constitution with wording sufficiently similar to the Second Amendment to make such an argument.

Although disappointed that the Supreme Court has been so quiet regarding the Second Amendment recently, it was a pleasant surprise to get the McDonald decision just two years after Heller.