Posted on 05/10/2022 5:58:20 AM PDT by DeweyCA
Bump for later reading. I’d say though, that one of the most important things they could do if they were actually interested in repairing the legal system would be if they’d get rid of the entire concept of asset forfeiture.
Why do you want to strip the military from their right to vote?
Well, they get to vote in their respective state & local elections. Notwithstanding your inaccurate assertion, they have not lost the right to vote while in. You give up certain rights when you join the military, this would be one more. When you leave the military, you would return to being able to vote in federal elections just like your other citizen rights are restored. Therefore, you really haven’t lost your right to vote federally. Again no one is making you join!
My idea is just a proposal to try and take self-interest out of the equation of voting.
All proposals\ideas have strengths and weaknesses.
The only way you're going to take self-interest out of the equation of voting is to ban voting entirely. People vote their own self-interest. Always have, always will.
We do get upset when a politician does things to promote his self-interest particularly his personal self-interest. We apply rules and regulations to try and block or at least minimize it. Why shouldn’t we do something similar to voters?
First, I don't think that Miller obligated a defendant to prove the utility of a weapon. I think the burden would still fall on a prosecutor to make the case that the weapon was NOT useful to a Militia.
Second, the Heller decision did widen the applicability of the Second Amendment to include weapons useful for self defense ( at least in the home). No mention was made of Miller as I recall. The Caetano decision overturned a Massachusetts law banning stun guns (or was it tasers?) and as I recall the defendant possessed the weapon OUTSIDE of any home.
No. The decision simply needs to actually be read.
Here's a direct quote from it: 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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
What this means was that the U.S. government committed a lie of omission. The court was not told that sawed-off shotguns were extensively used during WWI, in trench warfare in Europe. If it had, the court would have declared that sawed-off shotguns are absolutely protected under the 2nd amendment.
Here's a link to the entirety of the decision, and all available relevant documents... U.S. vs Miller
I must respectfully disagree. Please see my post #47 above. Properly read, US v Miller would pretty much destroy the NFA, because almost anything can be useful as a militia weapon.
"Properly read" means nothing. Literally. USC Title 18 Sec 241 and 242 SHOULD make the imposition of ANY kind of gun control a Federal felony.
And yet, here we are.
The only two which really matter are Marbury v. Madison and Texas v. White.
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.
Yep. If a weapon has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, it is covered by the 2nd amendment, and cannot even be taxed.
The logic of the Miller case, until other courts butchered it, is that military arms are the most protected. Then Scalia butchered it again within Heller.
It's fairly amazing how often courts misrepresent what a precedent stands for. It's all outcome oriented - that is rock bottom what "rule of law" amounts to. "We say so" on a case-by-case basis.
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.