by Witness 007 334 Replies latest jw friends
No, it was certainly not a Pyrrhic (PYREX is a type of GLASS) victory, and it overturned the status quo in DC.
Explain how? All D.C. has to do is re-phase the law and it's back to the way things were. One justice even pointed that out in his decent. Another one pointed out my argument. If one firearm is protected then all firearms are protected all the way up to nuclear devices. This decision will be revisited real soon, and over turned easily.
Like I said this is a Pyrrhic victory for guns rights activist you won, but in doing so you lost in the greater scheme.
Basically the supreme court upheld the Miller decision. Which means as long as Miller decision stands the Heller decision is a meaningless victory that will ultimately be undone sooner rather than later.
One justice even pointed that out in his decent.
Dissent, baby, dissent.
Means an opposing view, but you know that.
Peace/love/fortitude.
Sylvia
Basically the supreme court upheld the Miller decision.
The Miller decision was decided on completely different legal grounds than Heller. It was largely decided based on the gross misuse of the Federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. The weapon in question was transported from one state to another and the interstate commerce powers of the government were egregiously misused (let me also mention that the defendant didn't even show up) Don't even get me started on the Commerce Clause. Look up Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Our judiciary is the worst construed, most unchecked branch defined in the Constitution and we have paid a heavy price.
Which means as long as Miller decision stands the Heller decision is a meaningless victory that will ultimately be undone sooner rather than later.
Baby steps, grasshopper. Baby steps. Heller has opened the door to a metric asston of pro-liberty, pro-2nd Amendment litigation, and I and likeminded others intend to do our part in helping fund groups that will fight in the courts to maintain our freedom to fight in our self-defense and freedom. There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. In that order. In the end, the greatest weapon we have is bloodless, and that is to educate the next generation properly--beginning with our children--the generation that currently sits in power in our government is a lost and ruined one. As a wise man once said of his own time: "This generation is a wicked generation". Let's hope that ours escapes the judgement his received.
BTS
No, not the latest UFC heavyweight bout.
But, an exploration of an interesting twist in the law...
In January 1939, the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas heard argument in US vs. Miller concerning a sawed-off shotgun found in the defendant's truck when a raid for a still failed to find anything. Defense argued that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed.
The USAG appealed to the supreme Court and in March 1939 the Court heard the case. They reversed the lower court's decision saying that there was no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun had any value as a militia weapon and so did not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. Essentially saying only military-style weapons are protected.
Now, fast forward almost 65 years to Feb of 2003.
A lawsuit is brought against the District of Columbia contesting the District's draconian gun laws. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit.
The case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals and they reversed the decision saying the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
Petition was made to advance the case to the supreme Court and they agreed in November of '07 (looks like things went a lot faster seven decades ago).
In June of '08, the Court decided and reversed the Circuit Court's finding. That the "District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The supreme Court also decided, "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."
So, to give the Cliff's Notes version, Miller says the Second Amendment protects military-style weapons and, so, a sawed-off shotgun is not a protected firearm.
But, now we have Heller that has decided that the Second Amendment protects only non-military use firearms (actually, a silly decision - what non-military firearm is of any use to a militia?).
Heller has reversed the prohibition in Miller and given Second Amendment protections to the sawed-off shotgun.
I wonder how long before this sinks in...
This was from a progun conservative site. It does a good job with spelling out why ultimately Heller well be over turned, and very soon.
It does a good job with spelling out why ultimately Heller well be over turned, and very soon.
Explain why, in your own words, and with spellcheck, for the love of God.
BTS
Explain why, in your own words, and with spellcheck, for the love of God.
Spellcheck is the least of its' problems.
It needs an IQ-tripler, based on my experience on JWD.
BA- It's either a really badly written program, or it is actually a person (in which case I am sorry for pointing that out).
The U.S. vs. Miller case was a direct attack on the constitutionality of NFA34. In the case bootleggers Jack Miller and Frank Layton had been arrested for crossing state lines with an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun. The defendants proposed that NFA34 was a violation of the Second Amendment rights. The federal district court agreed with the defendants and quashed the indictment. The government appealed this ruling directly to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing.
One key event occurred at the hearing. Miller, Layton and their lawyers all failed to appear. Miller and Layton had disappeared. As a result, there was no presentation by their side.
The court declared:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' 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.
The fact was that a sawed-off shotgun was commonly referred to as a 'trench gun' in World War I. But this knowledge was outside the scope of what the Supreme Court could use.
In the end, the Supreme Court overturned the federal district court ruling, not because the Second Amendment was determined to be a collective right, but because the firearm in question was not a militia weapon. Of course, it was. But that information was not available to the justices.
If Miller, Layton and their lawyers had made an appearance, the landscape of federal gun control laws would probably be much different today.
A much longer examination of Miller is available at http://www.jpfo.org/miller.htm. For a very long examination, check out http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Puckett/MillerShotgun.pdf.
BA- It's either a really badly written program, or it is actually a person (in which case I am sorry for pointing that out).
I guess the science of artificial intelligence has a very long way to go. But I have high hopes......
"Explain why, in your own words, and with spellcheck, for the love of God.
Spellcheck is the least of its' problems.
It needs an IQ-tripler, based on my experience on JWD.
BA- It's either a really badly written program, or it is actually a person (in which case I am sorry for pointing that out)."
well, he is an intellectual giant. He "Served me" on another thread.
