Posted on 06/05/2006 12:35:33 PM PDT by neverdem
Not really. They found that they had no evidence before them that a sawed off shotgun was a suitable weapon for a militia because Miller was dead and his lawyer didn't bother to argue before the Court.
oops, typo. That's "Pierre" Daspit de St. Amand.
Thank you very much for the link!
A Constitution which is "inherently flexible" cannot be "the supreme Law," as its text describes it. Instead, it becomes whatever five unelected Justices on the Supreme Court decide it should be. Madison, Hamilton and Jay carefully explained why, in order to accomplish its central purpose as the distilled decision of the people of the US, the Constitution must be "the supreme Law." Otherwise, it is reduced at any moment to a nullity.
Brown needs to do more reading and less writing on the subject of the Constitution. She is spreading ignorant claptrap, here.
P.S. info. My primary is over, but because of legal and ethical problems, the incumbent may withdraw/be forced out. He is also losing in the latest poll (5/28) to the Democrat challenger. I seek to be the replacement nominee. For more information see my website. I still need your help.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Stomping on the Constitution, California-Style"
Actually, I find that worthy of a "Very Cool" label. ;-)
Despite that ruling, shotguns have played a part in military arsenals in virtually every war since WWI, from the trench brooms to the antipersonnel rounds of the M-79 and onward.
+1
It's simple, really: governments do not have rights, governments have powers. If the framers meant to reserve this power to the states, they would have said so.
People have rights. Rights are not granted by a piece of paper, they are granted by God. We already have them, so when it says, "the right of the people," it is talking about something we already have, not something being conferred upon us.
The amendment is, therefore, a restriction upon government. No more and no less.
And the decision was wrong.
Sawed off shotguns were in common use in the trenches of WWI. I believe Miller was dead and neither his lawyers or friend showed up for the hearing, so the incorrect information was treated as fact.
If you put it into historical context, “well regulated” in the late 1700s would have the meaning: Trained, drilled and proficient. Hence, a well regulated militia could have been worded: A militia that has been trained, drilled and is proficient in the arts of making war. The framers of the Constitution had no concept at all of “government regulation” in the current context.
Since the Constitution itself has an article concerning “Letters of Marquee” and the issue thereof, it was assumed by the framers that privet citizens would own warships mounting dozens of cannon.
Neither that clause nor the second amendment has been rescinded…
Good luck! Thanks for the link!
Personally, I wouldn't mind owning a tank, but I'll never afford the pricetag, much less a place to park it.
Some weapons platforms are self limiting by their pricetag alone.
That's one test, but I didn't think it was the 'Miller' test. The way I remember Miller is that the sawed-off shotgun was disallowed because it wasn't useful as a military weapon. (Though indeed it was in WW1, some shenanigans about who was allowed to testify happened in Miller). The Miller Case was about military usefulness, not indiscriminate results.
Sorry, I interpret all the regulations as infringements.
If a person is crazy enough or violent enough to be randomly dangerous, lock him up.
I've always like a couple of (science fiction writer) Robert Heinlein's thoughts: "An armed society is a polite society"
...and his notion of coventry for them as can't get along with their fellow man.
Paired, they solve the problem of excess violence and leave me alone to stay armed against true enemies, be they my own government or potential invaders.
On the contrary, the 2nd Amendment is clear. It's the 9th, 10th, and 14th that are harder to interpret.
I the Founders were around today, they would call for another revolution.
Please provide proof. I'm not aware of any such regulations, and I've read a LOT in this area. Even as late as the civil war, it wasn't unusual for (say) a plantation owner to buy the cannon for his local militia--but HE owned the cannon.
"And yes; those private sailing ships were well-armed and a logical argument probably can be made that this is evidence of unrestricted access to arms. But I would respond that that goes a bit far.
And you would be wrong. History says otherwise. Unfortunately for your position, between the Revolutionary War and up until the civil war, if you could afford to buy it, you could own it.
"The 2nd Amendment says "well-regulated." That must have had some meaning to the framers, otherwise they would not have put it in."
It did---it meant "well-trained". See "regulated" as in "regulation of a clock's movement". The bane of Washington's existence was the poor training of his militia elements. It wasn't until von Steuben showed up that they were "trained up" to an acceptable standard.
What the Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish is easy to ascertain from history---the only folks who would have you think otherwise are those that want to ban firearms.
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.