Posted on 06/16/2016 8:13:52 AM PDT by dware
When the BOR was written the word "regulated" was taken to mean "trained" so that as Jefferson said and I paraphrase, the nation be trained up in the use of arms.
Fire arms handling and training in their use should be part of the public school curriculum at least from grades 4-12.
When people are familiar with tools they no longer can be fooled into fearing them.
Word: Waco
The Miller case stands for the proposition that in order to be protected by the 2nd amendment ...
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time 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.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
In short, the Miller case applies 2nd amendment support to military weapons.
Scalia "rewrote" the Miller case in Heller. It was a radical revision to judicial precedent, a complete reversal.
The deliberate misconstrucion of the Presser case, for decades, is astounding. The federal courts uniformly applied the Presser case for the OPPOSITE of what it expressly says. Presser was used to justify upholding state and local laws that forbid possession of and carrying of firearms.
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 [second amendment] 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. But as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [parade permit laws] do not have this effect.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
The federal courts totally overlook this principle when citing Presser. Some courts cite Presser and claim it says the opposite of what it actually says!
Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States. The courts are uniform in this interpretation. See, e.g., Thomas, 730 F.2d at 42 (1st Cir.); Peoples Rights Org., 152 F.3d at 538-39 n. 18 (6th Cir.); Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269 (7th Cir.); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, 965 F.2d at 730-31 (9th Cir.). Just as Presser had no federal constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" with which to challenge Illinois's license requirement, Bach has none to assert against New York's regulatory scheme. Under Presser, the right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation on the power of States. ...Accordingly, we hold that the "right to keep and bear arms" does not apply against the States and affirm the district court's dismissal of Bach's Second Amendment claim.
Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005)
Note well, this is an illustration of the integrity and honesty of the courts.
Tried to post this article to Facebook and got a notice the content was blocked.
There's a surprise.
This would be a great FReepathon post for 7/4/16!
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.