Replies

Thanks, Triple. One of the great mysteries of life, IMHO, is the extent to which the Dennis Henigans et al. of this world -- the gun grabbers -- rely on United States v. Miller (1939). It seems such a slender reed on which to establish a theory of the Second Amendment as a state's right, for three reasons.

First, the standing issue: Miller has it, though he was not then nor ever had been a member of an organized militia. Still the Court was willing to take his case on grounds that his constitutional right to personal arms may have been violated by the Firearms Control Act of 1934.

Second, Miller presented NO oral argument in that case. Apparently, he and his buddy were long gone, back to the hills of West Virginny; I gather his counsel considered him a dead beat, so didn't bother to show up. So Miller's defense was never presented.

Third, the way the Justices ruled, it looks very likely to me that, had they recognized that the firearm he was being penalized for was, in fact, a "military-style firearm," he would have been exonerated. But the justices didn't know their firearms very well, I gather; nor did they appear aware that a firearm of the type that Miller was in possession of -- a short-barreled shotgun -- was issued in vast quantities during World War I. It was called a "trench sweeper," as I recall.

What the Left has done WRT Miller, IMHO, is to read the case selectively, to deliberately "misunderstand it," and then spin it beyond all reasonable sense. Like I said, Miller appears to me to be a very slender and very fragile reed to justify the expropriation of law-abiding gun owners.

Thanks so much for writing, Triple -- it's so nice to see you again. All my best, bb.