Posted on 02/19/2018 9:26:27 AM PST by Simon Green
Not bombs, not biowar items. Whole different category.
Whether they were right of wrong holding that his specific weapon did not serve a military purpose, they held that his protection under the 2nd amendment was not dependent on his participation in a recognized militia (an idea that the state had presented, I believe) and that his gun was only not protected due to it not serving a valid military purpose.
My contention is that an AR-15 whatever else it may be good for is arguably the single most appropriate rifle for use by a militia and is therefore explicitly protected according to US v Miller.
I’m not sure what his shotgun looked like but I always pictured it as a double barrel sawed nice and short rather than as a pump of a logical but illegal length like the military was using at that time.
So two.
If you can afford to buy and crew your own battleship then go for it.
Enjoy your pirate hunting.
I’m with you. #4
#1 - absolutely anything [that you can afford without government assistance].
Any and all weapons. Private citizens held warships in 1996.
1776.
Since we try to keep other countries from having or using them I will go with #2.
It was the issue of forming a standing army which supplanted the citizen militia, that lent the shadow of legitimacy to arms restrictions. The politicos are more comfortable with the known quantity of a military, that while well armed, are subject to being molded.
Anything that the FBI, the IRS or any Federal Agency is allowed to use against me.
Is that simple and clear enough?
although I personally would like a M41A pulse rife with a 30 mm grenade launcher.
Out weapons are meant to be a check and balance on the government, therefore the weapons we hold must be adequate to stop an errant government, if need be.
You might recall some years back that the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed to reduce the threat of having the "cold war" go hot. They mutually agreed to reduce the size of their nuclear armed bomber fleets and to destroy the excess bombers in a verifiable manner.
As I recall this was referred to as the "SALT" treaty; or the "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty"; Strategic ARMS ; ARMS !
The Founders expected the people to form the Militia independent of the central government and the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS in furtherance of that need; the Security of a Free State depended upon it.
You're definitely quite close in your summary of Miller.
The government did claim that membership in a Militia was required and by the nature of their decision the Court did not concur. If membership in a Militia was required to be protected by the Second Amendment, then there would have been no reason to consider the particular weapon possessed by Miller.
The Miller Court, however, did not decide the issue of the usefulness of a short-barreled shotgun. They mentioned the lack of "judicial notice" regarding the gun, meaning that the matter hadn't been addressed; mainly because the lower court considered it an "arm" and simply ruled that Miller himself was protected by the Second Amendment.
The fact is that the Miller Court REMANDED the case back to the lower court with only the nature of the weapon as an issue.
The lower court never again took up the issue, I think, due to the death of Miller and the disappearance of his co-defendant (or was it the reverse?).
For 70 years the lower courts blatantly LIED about the Miller decision and allowed the nonsensical "collective right" notion to take hold.
Because of the destruction of untaxed tea, the central government (that is, the King) occupied Boston with regular army troops and basically declared martial law. The government's fleet of war ships lay at anchor in the harbor. The government conducted raids on the people to confiscate cannon and powder.
The MILITIA, acting outside any government authority, shot the troops and forced them back to Boston. The government later attempted to oust the gathering MILITIA from Bunker Hill. At much greater cost than they anticipated, the government won the battle.
Seeing that they would need more impressive weapons to end the military occupation of Boston, a somewhat disorganized group of patriots stormed an unsuspecting Fort Ticonderoga, capturing the large guns at the Fort. They then dragged these guns back to Boston, setting them up on Dorchester Heights overlooking Boston harbor in the middle of the night.
When the military occupiers woke in the morning they found that their position had become untenable due to the vulnerable position of their fleet. A deal was negotiated to allow them to leave and Boston was freed.
The Second Amendment was ratified, at least in part, so that the necessity of having to obtain arms from a tyrannical government as a first step toward opposing tyranny would be eliminated in the future. The protected arms include anything necessary to oust the most powerful army in the world from a large city and, should the government resist, to destroy its fleet.
“... my knowledge of it originally came from TV movie ‘ROUGH RIDERS’. Needless to say it was privately bought, which was my point.” [Reily, post 77]
Films rarely contribute much in terms of historical insight. They can induce interested onlookers to pursue more complete and in-depth knowledge.
1997’s two-part TV miniseries _Rough Riders_, directed by John Milius and featuring brilliant performances by a big cast of noteworthy actors, is one of the most accurate film treatments of events in US military history ever to hit the small tube or the big screen. But it was rife with its own errors - some due to dramatic license, others inexplicable.
The most glaring technical flubs were the image reversals, showing rifles and machine guns in closeup.
No one ever manufactured US Krag carbines with left-hand bolts, but viewers get to see them several times during the charge scenes.
The Spanish defenders are shown firing early Maxim guns with dazzling bronze water jackets; no Maxims were used by the Spanish in that battle. And the scenes change at dizzying speed: some of the guns feed from the right, some from the left. In reality, no Maxim of the day fed from the left. And there were no Imperial German artillerists there helping the Spaniards.
William Tiffany was not killed in action as the film purports. He died some months later of disease, while the regiment was encamped on long Island.
Perhaps the least fair portrayal was that of Stephen Crane, author of _Red Badge of Courage_, who was present during the battle. The film dwells on his alleged drinking and drug use, but he was neither a drunk nor a narcotics user (as actor Adam Storke spoke the lines). He was simply a very nice guy afflicted by what used to be called a “delicate constitution:” he was forever neglecting his health, scurrying off to remote spots and strange destinations in pursuit of stories and notable experiences. Things caught up with him; he died of tuberculosis (common at the time) less than two years after he covered the assault on the San Juan Heights.
Director Milius engaged in some dark foreboding near the end of the second part, showing Theodore Roosevelt’s youngest and favorite child Quentin as a boy of age eight or more. In actuality, Quentin was born in late 1897, so when TR returned home from service with the 1st USVC, he was still a babe in arms.
Sad to say, the Spanish-American War and the Mexican-American War garnered little attention during their recent centennial and sesquicentennial commemorations - save from PC activists and anti-American academics and the like.
70% of the Cannons used by the Patriots during the Revolutionary War came from Private hands. They were the ultimate Weapon of the day.
When I was Kid back in the late 50’s, I could have bought (and wish I did) a seized WWII Surplus German Anti Tank Rifle with Cartridges for $179.00 that was advertised in the back of a Magazine.
That being said, the simple answer to your query is a Weapon that can be used in Defense of Life and Property.
“...Our forefathers owned cannon and Gatling guns with the governments blessing.” [jdietz, post 58]
https://www.colt.com/Catalog/Special-Editions/1877-Bulldog-Gatling-Gun
Plain citizens may still own a new-made Gatling without any greater government involvement than that required for buying a rifle or shotgun.
Colt’s has reintroduced their M1877 “Bulldog” gun, chambered in 45-70. Pricey: upwards of $50,000.00. Likely cheaper than an original.
Federal firearms regulatory agencies have permitted transfer of Gatling guns all along without special fees or background investigation. Hand-powered only; no Mini-guns except in compliance with rules and taxes specified for machine guns.
“... MOST of the ships were private.
http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html ... Private ships: 1,600+, Navy: 64/ Private cannon: 14,800, Navy: 1,240.
... I have no idea how accurate this particular website noted is. ...”
Seen similar figures for the period 1775-1783, but hadn’t encountered this site before.
Total numbers of guns means less than might be thought. Privateers and armed merchantmen mounted guns of smaller bore and fewer numbers than a purpose-built warship. Smaller guns (6-pounder down to 2-pounder or so) were sufficient to scare off pirates and intimidate enemy merchant vessels to strike colors; guns firing iron balls of 8 pounds of weight on up to 32 pounds could outrange smaller guns with ease, but were disproportionately more expensive - to acquire, and to feed. Any warship mounting 24-pounder long guns even in small numbers could handily outrange smaller guns; a single broadside could disable a smaller, less-heavily-armed vessel or sink it.
Curious that the website places so much emphasis on “Mariners from Maine.” There was no colony of Maine during the American War of Independence: merely an ill-defined collection of small settlements scattered thinly along what is today the rocky, inlet-pierced coast of the State of Maine. Subsistence farmers and timber-cutters, settled by colonists from Massachusetts.
“It was the issue of forming a standing army which supplanted the citizen militia, that lent the shadow of legitimacy to arms restrictions. The politicos are more comfortable with the known quantity of a military, that while well armed, are subject to being molded.”
In no case were the Founders more in error than in their judgment concerning the nature & risks of a “standing army” (not quite identical to today’s professional military establishment). Modern conservatives bid fair to make the same error: the military is the instrument, not the source of policy.
In 1770, there were scarcely any professional military organizations: two possible exceptions were Britain’s Royal Navy and the army of Prussia (then a rural backwater). The British Army had not the first notion of professionalism; officers advanced not by talent nor experience, but by purchasing their commissions, and each higher rank in succession. Hence the Army was populated by well-heeled “gentlemen” and moneyed scions of the aristocracy. All across Europe, it was widely believed that only upper crusters (nobility, royalty and the like) had the ability to lead troops in battle, and that ability was inborn and heritable. Senior British officers that had any real training could be numbered on one hand (Charles, Lord Cornwallis was one).
Things were changing rapidly, though.
In the fledgling United States, it was believed that anyone could lead, and all (male) citizens were equal to the task of manning the militia - in those days, the beginning and the end of national defense.
Only a few forward thinkers rejected this orthodoxy. By the mid 1790s, it was realized that to be capable, any corps of professional army officers had to undergo training. About 1796 or so, classes began to be conducted surreptitiously, out of the immediate view of Congress’ fishy eye, under the less-frightening title of “Advanced School of Artillery” or something similar. West Point was a going concern before President Jefferson signed the authorizing legislation into law in 1802.
The situation grew a great deal more serious during the War of 1812, during which the nation barely avoided being completely crushed by the British. Small-r “republican virtue” was found to be inadequate to the task of organizing, training, and equipping a militia that could fight; several states (mostly New England) strongly resisted the use of their militia in military campaigns conducted by the federal government. The nation drifted very close to fragmenting right then.
After that, the more sober leaders came to realize that the United States would never be taken seriously unless it fielded a professionally-trained military, or a cadre at least, capable of setting conditions for rapid expansion of land forces, when the need arose. And (as happened inside many civilian professions, including the then-forming profession of “engineering”), they perceived that developing and maintaining that level of professionalism was a full-time job, for small numbers at least. Part-timers full of “republican virtue” could not provide sufficient prowess to prevail.
The burgeoning technological changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution proved the forward thinkers correct. Similar changes happened inside the Navy Dept, which won public acclaim thanks to the brilliance of warship design and construction evinced by the likes of Joshua Humphreys in the late 18th century, plus the courage and seamanship demonstrated by commanders and crews in action during the War of 1812 (the source of most of the few clear-cut successes during that conflict, the then-tiny handful of US Naval vessels sailed into history, to much public satisfaction and large increases in morale).
Compared to the unforeseen rise of the self-righteous, self-satisfied, overbearing, moralizing Progressive movement, the threat of tyranny against the citizenry at large from the professional military establishment has been nil. Remains true even when considering the rise of the “military industrial complex”.
Are the costs high? Certainly. Better to pay in dollars, than in blood. If we are still granted that choice.
The choice we do not have is to withdraw from the world. No trading nation does. And the country was founded on trade, not to be a “city on a hill,” sufficient unto itself, indifferent to others.
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.