Posted on 01/28/2008 8:39:17 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Because you ain't gonna outflank or outgun them!
Seriously, everyone should have the ability to 'go mobile' if the situation requires it.
A good surplus ALICE pack on eBay with frame can be had reasonably cheap. Pack it with a med kit, food, water filter and sidearm at least. Should be sitting in a closet or vehicle ready to roll.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Perhaps if they had shown us some character that instilled faith and trust we might be different.
“Experience and treachery will beat youth and vigor every damn time.”
The Second Amendment
The Right to a Free Press
Who in turn would make Vonetta Ecks seem skilled, competent and professional.
Oh I will
I’ll leave toys, though.
Actually, some of the State Constitutions make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and includes the right to use those arms for self defense. Maybe those are the half that will not write new legislation.
I thought they ignored the argument. Can you please point out where the Miller court disagreed?
Why?
The Seventh Amendment protects individuals in DC but does not protect individuals throughout the nation. The Grand Jury clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals in DC but does not protect individuals throughout the nation.
Federalism died in the push for Nationalism. Replacing it with Statism isn't going to help very much.
Much like California's medical marijuana initiatives. They can make laws, but the FedGov will exert its power even absent legitimate authority.
Imagine Waco/Ruby Ridge enacted over and over again...
Nope. They’re delighted to know where to go to pick up what they need when travelling to their annexed province of Azltan.
“Any particular reason we should use the English examples of laws when they are the very people that we fought in order to gain our freedom???”
That was my thought?????
Had they agreed with the argument, they had a duty to say so. They are in the business of providing decisions that lower courts can use as FINAL legal guidance in the case at hand, in so far as they have the information to do so.
To suggest that the militia membership of Miller and Layton was going to be an issue at some later time is to suggest that the legal system works other than the way it does.
I know that I am completely incapable of convincing you that federal infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is prohibited with respect to persons in DC as well as in the various states.
As far as I am concerned, the Seventh Amendment should be applied to all suits, just as the amendment says. Feel free to make the case that the Founders ratified the Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms of a tiny fraction of the people of the United States.
Even under your tortured interpretation that the Second Amendment protects the right of the states to form "well-regulated" militias, it certainly must be the case that the Second Amendment is not limited in its scope to just the people of DC.
But they had no such duty if they disagreed?
"To suggest that the militia membership of Miller and Layton was going to be an issue at some later time"
The court didn't even know if this was a Militia-type weapon! Why in the world would they concern themselves with Militia membership?
Correct. It only prevents the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms of individuals who are part of a well regulated Militia -- independent of where they reside.
"As far as I am concerned, the Seventh Amendment should be applied to all suits"
Your preference has been duly noted.
"Feel free to make the case that the Founders ratified the Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms of a tiny fraction of the people of the United States."
At the time, it was about 20% of the population.
"it certainly must be the case that the Second Amendment is not limited in its scope to just the people of DC."
I don't believe it protects the people of DC unless they're members of a well regulated Militia.
You can't claim that the idea that militia membership was required didn't occur to the Court, since the prosecutor included it in his summary. Somehow you can see that, if the weapon is not protected, then militia membership is irrelevant.
Why are you unable to see that, if only militia membership is protected, then the particular weapon is irrelevant? No further evidence was required by the Court if that was their opinion and they had a duty to include such guidance. If the Court "disagreed" but somehow made a majority decision which did not include miltitia membership, then militia membership IS NOT REQUIRED. Anything else would be a DIFFERENT decision and would not be a part of the Miller decision.
The Court was aware of both issues and had a duty to guide the trial court. Their decision was that Miller and Layton need not be in a militia to win an acquittal.
We've been over this material in great detail in the past. You persist in your error because you fail to realize that the Court was responsible for guiding the trial court with respect to ALL relevant issues. An acquittal of Miller and Layton COULD NOT be appealed by the prosecutor.
Most of us know your opinion. I will be absolutely amazed and shocked into disbelief if the Roberts Court comes anywhere near a decision which fails to support an individual right.
Obviously, Militia membership was irrelevant to the court.
You seem to forget the charges in this case. Miller was NOT charged with carrying an illegal weapon. He was NOT charged with carrying a weapon that only Militia members are allowed to carry. He was charged with interstate transportation of a weapon without the required tax stamp.
The only question before the Miller court was whether the tax stamp requirement was constitutional under the second amendment. The lower court believed the second amendment protected ALL weapons and ruled the tax stamp requirement unconstitutional. The Miller court implied that only Militia type weapons were protected by the second amendment.
"you fail to realize that the Court was responsible for guiding the trial court with respect to ALL relevant issues."
Be that as it may, they didn't. As the First Circuit Court said in US v. Cases (regarding the Miller decision), "The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go."
You mean "an individual right outside of a well regulated Militia".
I give it 50-50. As I said before, if the U.S. Supreme Court had refused to hear the case, the "individual fundamental right" decision by the DC Circuit would have stood. Since they took the case, what more do you think they'll add? Seriously.
Even the administration is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to scratch out "fundamental", thereby subjecting gun laws to only a rational basis review.
We had it all, and people like you were not happy and wanted a showdown. Well, you got one. And look what's happening.
I say it's even possible that the U.S. Supreme Court could conclude handguns do not bear a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia and are, therefore, not protected under the second amendment. That's what the Seventh Circuit Court said in Quilici v. Morton Grove in 1982.
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.