Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ForYourChildren
From the linked article: "... 2008, when the Supreme Court broke with 70 years of established jurisprudence and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right ..."

Where would the anti-gunners be without their lies.

The "70 years of established jurisprudence" were based on lies about the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in US vs. Miller. The Supreme Court was asked to reverse a lower court decision dismissing weapons charges against Miller based on two theories.

One was that Miller had to be a member of a Militia in order to be protected by the Second Amendment. The second was that the weapon Miller used had to be useful to a Militia in order for possession of such a weapon to be protected by the Second Amendment.

If membership in a Militia had been a requirement, then it would not have mattered what the weapon was. But the Court completely ignored the government's claim that Militia membership was required, and instead remanded the case for further consideration by the lower court regarding whether or not the weapon itself was useful to a Militia; with the clear understanding that the charge against Miller should be dismissed if the weapon itself was useful to a Militia, with no regard whatsoever to whether or not Miller was a member of any such Militia.

It was only the lower courts which later completely misrepresented this case resulting in 70 years of infringements with the collaboration of a silent Supreme Court.

The article claims that there is no relationship between the Second Amendment and state protections of the right to keep and bear arms, despite the use of virtually identical language in most cases.

68 posted on 10/12/2014 10:05:51 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell
Here's Justice Hugo Black ( who served on the Miller Court ) about the court's decision :
"Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute."

(Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)

As Stephen Halbrook correctly pointed out, under the "collective right" version of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court would have dismissed Miller's lawsuit against the Feds due to obvious lack of standing.

They would have explained that Miller obviously had no 2A rights and should have never been allowed to assert a claim for 2A protection in the first place.

70 posted on 10/12/2014 12:28:17 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson