Well Said
See Below
Posted on 11/25/2002 1:28:31 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
Therefore, the SC remanded the case back to the lower court, thus enabling leftists everywhere to claim Miller as "their case", even though a careful reading clearly demonstrates that this is a pro-RKBA case.
(The way the liberals read it)
Well Said
See Below
A group of thirty young black men and women, dressed in black leather jackets, berets, and dark glasses, crosses the lawn to the steps of the state capitol. Many of them are armed with shotguns, though they are careful to keep the weapons pointed towards the sky. As they approach the entrance to the capitol building, Governor Ronald Reagan, speaking to a cluster of schoolchildren nearby, catches sight of their advance, turns on his heel, and runs.
Still marching in tight formation, the group reaches the steps, faces the crowd, and listens attentively as their leader, Bobby Seale, [1] reads Executive Mandate Number One of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense to the startled audience. The mandate, addressed to “the American people in general and the black people in particular,” details the “terror, brutality, murder, and repression of black people” practiced by “the racist power structure of America,” and concludes that “the time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.” [2]
Cameras flash as Seale finishes reading and the defiant group proceeds into the building. One wrong turn, and the delegation stumbles onto the Assembly floor, currently in debate over the Mulford Act, aimed to prohibit citizens from carrying loaded firearms on their persons or in their vehicles.
Chaos ensues: legislators dive under desks, screaming, “Don’t shoot!” and security guards hurriedly surround the party, grabbing at weapons and herding everyone into the hallway. All the while cameramen and reporters run back and forth, grinning in anticipation of tomorrow’s headlines.
“Who are you?” one manages to shout before the assembly is led into an elevator. Sixteen-year-old “little” Bobby Hutton is the first to reply, and his words remain an echo in the hallway just before the doors slide shut with a soft hiss:
“We’re the Black Panthers. We’re black people with guns. What about it?”[3]
Members of the Black Panther Party in the Capitol, Sacramento, CA, May 1967
Agreed that this is a generally a good, pro-gun 2nd Amendment piece, especially coming from a liberal. However, I'd like to differ with you slightly, or rather to finish your argument. What the USSC said was that it was not "within judicial notice" that a short-barreled shotgun was (and here I paraphrase) a piece of equipment that would contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The operative phrase is "not within judicial notice." Miller won at the circuit level, and was released from prison. Being a scumbag, he promptly disappeared. Not being paid, his lawyer didn't show up for oral argument at the USSC when the government appealed. Then the government attorney failed to point out (contrary to his duty as a lawyer) his opponent's obvious argument that such guns were, in fact used with great efficiency in WW1, only 21 years earlier (they were called "trench brooms," since they very efficiently and effectively cleared trenches of live enemies). It is ONLY the fact that the USSC had no "judicial notice" of this that allowed the government to win this case; otherwise, the 1934 NFA would be a short-lived and forgotten law.
I do dispute your contention that the only thing protected by the 2nd Amendment is "standard military issue" weapons. First of all, the 2nd Amendment protects "arms," which is a very wide general catagory, rather than "standard military arms," which is far less broad. Second, even by the standard set by Miller, ANY weapon used with effect on the battlefield would be protected. Look at what was used in WW2, which the US joined only 2 years after the Miller case: not just Garands, full-auto Thompsons and M-1 carbines, but also M-3 "greasegun" submachine guns, .30 and .50 caliber machine guns, single shot "Liberty" guns dropped by the millions to resistance movements across Europe, pen guns, hand grenades, silenced guns of all kinds, etc. Oh, and short-barreled shotguns. In other words, ANY weapon used on the battlefield that can be carried by a single person is protected by the Miller standard, and the NFA should be struck down in its entirety, as should the 1968 Gun Control Act. Now, in 2002, you and I should be able to walk into our local hardware store and buy a full-auto M-16, a SAW, or any of the standard infantry weapons of ANY army in the world - but also ANY weapon that would be of any effect on any battlefield (so that if a futurist weapon were developed, but not adopted by any army, we should still be able to buy it). I am not holding my breath waiting for this to declared legal, but it should be. Someday, perhaps, a 2nd Amendment case will come before the USSC, and we'll see the wrongs of the past corrected. One can only hope, and perhaps a bit more, now that Bush's nominees (whom I would generally expect to be strict constructionists) can actually get a fair hearing. We'll see.
And I expect it's safe to say that the feds are confidant that Miller's body will never be found.
The Supreme Court did no such thing in Miller. To the contrary, it went off on its own finding that a sawed off shotgun did not constitute a "militia" weapon, and cited in passing many state statutes in support of the truism that the "militia" meant all able bodies males. Miller is shaky law anyway because the defendant's side was never argued before the Court.
(The way the liberals read it)
Yes, see this thread I posted earlier.
Re-arranging phrases for clarity.... The Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear weapons for the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
Good post. I agree with the contention that any weapon that couldbe carried by a "militiaman" is protected for keeping and bearing. This includes bazooka, rocket launcher, and all matter of autos.
I believe that "group weapons", IOW, ones that would commonly be controlled by a platoon, etc., which include tanks, tactical nukes, artillery, air power, are more rightly controlled by "groups" of citizens, and that this is where the National Guard comes in.
This division of "arms" effectively kills the argument of those who whine "So you would be OK with your neighbor driving down the street in a tank?"
Interesting that the 1968 Gun Control act was then enacted. Seems to support the contention that much of the early gun control was racist in motivation.
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.