High court to look at ban on handguns

McClatchy-Tribune ^ | Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM | MICHAEL DOYLE

[Kickass Conservative]

I’ll be waiting for the first jack booted SOB to show up at my door looking to uphold “the law”.

Live free or die...

[publiusF27]

publiusF27: Was Miller in a militia? I guess so, or the Supreme Court would not have been considering his 2A rights as they relate to that shotgun at all, since he would have none to consider.

Mojave: Beg that question!

Scalia: Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

[Mojave]

Scalia's comment had nothing to do with Miller.

Or did you think this was a drug thread?

[publiusF27]

Scalia wasn't talking about Miller, huh? Let's fill in the context of that quotation:

JUSTICE STEVENS places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939). “[H]undreds of judges,” we are told, “have relied on the view of the amendment we endorsed there,” post, at 2, and “[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments on both side of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law,” post, at 4. And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.” Post, at 2.

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “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.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. JUSTICE STEVENS can say again and again that Miller did “not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” post, at 42–43, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most JUSTICE STEVENS can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

Nope, nothing about Miller in there at all. He must have been talking about some other opinion or something. What do you think he was talking about? And can I have some of the drugs that made you think that?

[Mojave]

"Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that." --Scalia

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. You really should read your quotes before posting them.

[publiusF27]

Stupidest post I’ve seen on this board. Just because Scalia thinks that Stevens’ reading of Miller is impossible does not mean that he doesn’t share my view that if the Supreme Court had thought that Miller’s non-membership in a militia was relevant, they would have used it to toss the case before even reaching the question of whether a short barreled shotgun was a militia weapon. He clearly does share that view, which you called question begging.

[Mojave]

Does that inane babbling have a point to it?

I have repeatedly cited Miller and stated my agreement with it. So does Scalia.

Keep on toking.

[publiusF27]

But didn’t you just say that Scalia wasn’t even talking about Miller in the quote I posted? You’re too stupid to realize he was talking about Miller, and too stupid to see the implications of his statement and mine regarding Miller are the same:

If militia membership were relevant to 2A rights, Miller’s case would never have been heard because he was not a militiaman.

Keep on ducking, dodging, and pretending you don’t understand. I find it amusing. ;-)

And BTW, your wonderful gangster photos with the question posed of whether they are militia members is now blessedly irrelevant:

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

[Mojave]

too stupid to see the implications of his statement and mine regarding Miller are the same

Talk about irony.

I cite Miller, you piss your pants. You pretend Scalia's comment refutes me and when it does the opposite you go ballistic.

Your strawman wilted.

[publiusF27]

LOL! OK, I’m going to try to pound the square peg into the round hole and follow what you said happened.

At which post number did you cite Miller?

[Mojave]

Mojave: Are unconvicted Crips and Bloods the militia?

publiusF27: Sure, if they’re male citizens between 17 and 45...

Scalia: Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

Per Scalia, your argument that Crips and Bloods are the Militia has NO relevance to the right to keep and bear arms.

Poor you.

[publiusF27]

tacticalogic at 1198: What do the Bloods and the Crips have to do with whether the right to keep and bear arms is a collective or individual right?

Mojave at 1199: That depends on whether you hold them to be part of the militia or not.

I am soooo glad that militia nonsense is over. Poor you. ;-)

Now, can we at least agree that Scalia was talking about the nature of the Miller case in that quotation, or are you still denying that as well?

[Mojave]

Scalia refuted your false contention that membership in a militia is a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms. Miller was silent on the issue.

Nice foot shot.

[publiusF27]

OK, when do you think I contended that militia membership is a prerequisite to the RKBA? I think this Supreme Court decision may have short circuited your brain, but you’re funnier than ever!

[Mojave]

Did you already forget your contention that Crips and Bloods are militia?

Frequent use has that effect.

[tacticalogic]

Frequent use has that effect.

What causes continuing to argue an irrelevant point after it's been rendered moot?

[Mojave]

You tell me.

[tacticalogic]

I was thinking alcohol might be a possibility.

[Mojave]

I don’t think he drinks.

[publiusF27]

I have already pointed out where you said gun rights depend on militia membership at post 1199. You repeated it at post 1203. Now show me even one post where I said it.

And no, pointing out that the law (saying the unorganized militia is composed of all males 17 to 45 and female members of the Guard) might apply to Crips and Bloods is not the same as saying their gun rights depend on militia membership.

Lemme guess... is it opposite day? ;-)