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

To: Basil Duke
Although there is much to recommend this piece, the author is wrong about the Miller case. In this ruling, the court held that Miller was precluded from owning a sawed off shotgun because sawed off shotguns were not weapons ordinarily found in U.S. Army units. In other words, in the court's opinion, regular citizens were entitled to possess those guns that were standard military issue - a pretty solid blow in support of the Second Amendment.

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.

8 posted on 11/25/2002 2:10:40 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Ancesthntr
. 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.

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?"

16 posted on 11/25/2002 2:50:08 PM PST by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr
Yes, all arms are covered by the Second Amendment, not just "standard military issue". A tank would contribute to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", so would a MG or nuke.
19 posted on 11/25/2002 3:19:31 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr
Thank you for your informative post. I didn't mean to infer that MY personal interpretation of the Second Amendment posits that it pertains exclusively to military arms. I was conveying - or at least trying to - the general thrust of Miller. One thing about Miller himself; I can't cite a source on this, but vis a vis the proverbial "somewhere," I read the man failed to appear in court because he died before the case came up.
29 posted on 11/26/2002 7:49:41 AM PST by Basil Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr
Your take on the Miller case is spot on.

Another interesting aspect of this case is that some years after the decision, one of the judges involved in the decision admitted that he had, in fact, used a short barreled shotgun in his service during WWI. However, as you (and the court) stated, there was no judicial notice and the govt lied it's ass off with the result being the foundation for almost all gun control laws to follow.

31 posted on 11/26/2002 8:29:16 AM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr
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.

It's a good thing you're not holding your breath..

48 posted on 11/27/2002 3:08:34 PM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr
Absolutely 100% correct, sir. Its nice to see someone that "GETS IT", thank you.
50 posted on 11/27/2002 3:52:14 PM PST by mn_b_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | 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