Gun control to the supreme court
7 Responses to “Gun control to the supreme court”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 17th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
We have done well for the most part, in the courts as of late. But in the end it all comes down to where people believe their rights come from.
And I’ll tell you. It ain’t from nine black robes.
You were born with them, and nobody can take them from you if you refuse them.
“Freedom begins at the Muzzle, and ends at the Butt-plate.”
February 17th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Wonderful article! Very hopeful, and I could use some hope right now.
February 17th, 2013 at 11:08 pm
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
In this court case a man possessed a sawed off shotgun, the courts said since weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.”
So all one has to do show show it is “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense” OR maybe either one OR the other.
We will see.
February 18th, 2013 at 2:50 am
Paul, as I’ve said before, “Miller could not have a sawed-off shotgun because it wasn’t a military-pattern weapon.(But of course it WAS.) I can’t have an M-4 (without jumping through a lot of hoops.) BECAUSE it’s a military-pattern weapon.”
Makes perfect sense.
February 18th, 2013 at 5:06 am
After the Roberts fold on Obamacare, I’m not all that hopeful here… even if all the justices remain healthy for the next four years.
February 18th, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Rick:
You misinterpret the Miller decision. The Court stated that “in the absence of evidence” they could not take judicial notice that Miller’s “shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length” was suitable for militia use. This was because Miller had no representation before the Supreme Court, and this question had not been raised in District court. They therefore reversed the District court decision, and remanded the case for FINDING – which, of course, never happened. They DID NOT SAY that Miller’s shotgun COULDN’T be part of the “ordinary military equipment,” they said THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE IT MIGHT BE – and, to be blunt, they didn’t, because there was no one to produce that evidence.
It was quite a feat of legal gymnastics that allowed the Supreme Court to dodge a legislative bullet – and keep dodging it from 1939 until the Heller decision 69 years later.
Now, if the Court is to remain intellectually honest, they must support stare decisis from Scott v. Sanford (1857): (“… keep and carry arms wherever they went.”), U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875): “…bearing arms for a lawful purpose.”, Presser v. Illinois (1886 – cites Cruikshank): “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 constitutional provision in question out of view, 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.”
February 18th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Kevin, right you are.
All I got to say is DAMN Miller’s lawyer for not showing up! Although you can’t really blame him for not wanting to do pro bono work for a dead (and broke) client.