Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/20/2005 6:06:30 AM EDT
This is pissing me off. We're supposed to be writing a case breif for next wednesday on US v Miller and the textbook for the class has a page about the case. The author of the book summarizes the case as "The supreme court ruled that the second amendment is a collective right" which is blatantly false given the facts of the case. It fails to mention that Miller was dead and there was no attorney representing him. It fails to menton that the court was intentionally mislead by the US attorneys. It then goes on to say something to the effect of "The people who believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right are a vast minority" which i have evidence to be false from numerous polls. It then goes on to say that the Miller case is cited by those who seek to restrict guns as often as it is ignored by the pro-gun crowd" which is total BS. It then went into some rhetoric about the "powerful gun lobby." At the end of the chapter a question for thought is "why does the gun rights crowd choose to ignore the miller case?"

This is about as bad as i've seen something claiming to be a textbook.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:25:02 AM EDT
damn threads move fast in this forum.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:34:55 AM EDT
It's so irritating that I'm afraid to comment about it due to the CoC.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:36:07 AM EDT
That's pretty gay and blatantly false. IIRC the miller case said that the NFA was constitutional because it only banned weapons that were NOT used by militaries (exact opposite of sporting-purpose clause). The deception of the US attorneys was that short-barreled shotguns actually were common military weapons.

Not that you could possibly have a fair ruling when only one side is there to present the case...
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:39:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 6:41:09 AM EDT by tc556guy]
So write to the textbook company with your refutation and ask them to change the next edition to include an opposing view.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:54:49 AM EDT
As I recall the case, the Court stated that the short-barreled shotgun that Miller possessed was not suitable for militia duties and therefore was not protected. If the Court had held that the second amendment was a "collective right," and therefore did not protect Miller at all, why would it have had to make the finding regarding the suitability of the shotgun?

Furthermore, what is a "collective right"? Is this like the bible (where two or more are gathered in my name. . . .). How can this interpretation of a "collective right" be squared with the language of the Second Amdt - "the right of the people .. . ." If the Second Amdt secures a "collective right," then why isn't the first amdt also a "collective right"? After all, it states "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances . . . " Or for that matter, the fourth amdt (right of the people to be secure in their persons etc...).
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:08:34 AM EDT
the right of the people.... it couldn't be more fucking clear....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:09:53 AM EDT
WTF is a "collective" right? Why the hell did it start being used and where did it come from?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:29:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 7:30:57 AM EDT by clubsoda22]

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:
As I recall the case, the Court stated that the short-barreled shotgun that Miller possessed was not suitable for militia duties and therefore was not protected. If the Court had held that the second amendment was a "collective right," and therefore did not protect Miller at all, why would it have had to make the finding regarding the suitability of the shotgun?



The governments case was that the second amendment protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms and that the shotgun in question was not suitable for militia duties.

The court talked a lot about what the militia was and came to the same conclusion as the government at the time did: all able bodied males capable of acting in the common defense. Was the stevens double barrel shotgun not a weapon in common use with armies of the time? Depends how specific you want to get. If you want to get very specific, no, but the BAR, maxim and thompson were and they are restricted under the same law.

The Justices had no prior military experiance and the government attorneys lead them to falsely believe that short barreled shotguns served no military purpose when indeed they did and have been used in warfare since the blunderbuss. Due to Miller not mounting a defense (because he was dead at the time), no one was there to say otherwise.

I have a strong feeling that my 1 page case breif is going to be 5 pages by the time i'm done.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:32:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
So write to the textbook company with your refutation and ask them to change the next edition



Exactly. That is a scholarly publication. Ask them to back up their assertion with citations. They can't do it. Present your assertion. Back it up.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:33:41 AM EDT
mail will be sent as soon as possible.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:34:00 AM EDT
Tagged, let us know what your prof says when he gets your case brief.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:34:24 AM EDT
If you use the textbook as your only source, you are NOT doing your research.

There are other sources out there with a more thorough analysis of Miller.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:35:30 AM EDT
Call the NRA and let them know, they'll help you out.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:37:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
If you use the textbook as your only source, you are NOT doing your research.

There are other sources out there with a more thorough analysis of Miller.



Clearly i've done research outside the textbook or i wouldn't be bitching. The problem is i have no faith in the rest of america's youth.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:48:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Call the NRA and let them know, they'll help you out.

Kharn



+1 on this. The NRA should know about this. They are pretty good about following up on stuff like this. Send them a letter, or if you don't have time, send me some info and I'll send it to them. Good on you for catching this misleading information. It speaks very highly of your dedication to learn. Good form!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:51:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
This is pissing me off. We're supposed to be writing a case breif for next wednesday on US v Miller and the textbook for the class has a page about the case. The author of the book summarizes the case as "The supreme court ruled that the second amendment is a collective right" which is blatantly false given the facts of the case. It fails to mention that Miller was dead and there was no attorney representing him. It fails to menton that the court was intentionally mislead by the US attorneys. It then goes on to say something to the effect of "The people who believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right are a vast minority" which i have evidence to be false from numerous polls. It then goes on to say that the Miller case is cited by those who seek to restrict guns as often as it is ignored by the pro-gun crowd" which is total BS. It then went into some rhetoric about the "powerful gun lobby." At the end of the chapter a question for thought is "why does the gun rights crowd choose to ignore the miller case?"

This is about as bad as i've seen something claiming to be a textbook.



Unfortunately most textbooks found in academia contain lots of problems like the one you cite.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:52:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
If you use the textbook as your only source, you are NOT doing your research.

There are other sources out there with a more thorough analysis of Miller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Clearly i've done research outside the textbook or i wouldn't be bitching. The problem is i have no faith in the rest of america's youth.


If your book messed this up, think of all the things in there you have not double checked.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:57:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 7:58:04 AM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Unfortunately most textbooks found in academia contain lots of problems like the one you cite.




Change "most" to "all" and you've got it.

Textbooks are, imo, a crutch, especially at the college level. The kids can handle primary documents. Why talk about Miller when you can give the kids the documents and let them figure it out.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:59:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:
Change "most" to "all" and you've got it.



Not all. Some are very good.

Others aren't fit to be toilet paper.



Textbooks are, imo, a crutch, especially at the college level. The kids can handle primary documents. Why talk about Miller when you can give the kids the documents and let them figure it out.



Textbooks are a necessary evil. It is impossible for many classes to consider such specific topics in great detail.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:01:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Call the NRA and let them know, they'll help you out.
Kharn



Hell yea.
Contact the Second Amendment Foundation too. It would make a nice sidebar to the 2005 Gun Rights Policy Conference!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:10:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
This is pissing me off. We're supposed to be writing a case breif for next wednesday on US v Miller and the textbook for the class has a page about the case.



So write it with the actual facts and only use those things in the book that are. Surely your professor/instructor would accept facts, especially when talking about criminal courts...
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:16:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
This is pissing me off. We're supposed to be writing a case breif for next wednesday on US v Miller and the textbook for the class has a page about the case. The author of the book summarizes the case as "The supreme court ruled that the second amendment is a collective right" which is blatantly false given the facts of the case. It fails to mention that Miller was dead and there was no attorney representing him. It fails to menton that the court was intentionally mislead by the US attorneys. It then goes on to say something to the effect of "The people who believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right are a vast minority" which i have evidence to be false from numerous polls. It then goes on to say that the Miller case is cited by those who seek to restrict guns as often as it is ignored by the pro-gun crowd" which is total BS. It then went into some rhetoric about the "powerful gun lobby." At the end of the chapter a question for thought is "why does the gun rights crowd choose to ignore the miller case?"

This is about as bad as i've seen something claiming to be a textbook.



If I understand correctly, below is the full text of US v Miller and I don't see anything in there about a collective right". I am no legal scholar though, perhaps I'm missing something. Reagrding the second, it says that no evidence was produced to show that a short-shotty had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" then the conviction can't be overturned based on protection form the 2nd Amendment. No?

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

307 U.S. 174

UNITED STATES
v.
MILLER et al.
No. 696.

Argued March 30, 1939.
Decided May 15, 1939.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. [307 U.S. 174, 175] Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

No appearance for appellees.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

The cause is here by direct appeal.

Considering Sonzinsky v. United States, 1937, 300 U.S. 506, 513 , 57 S. Ct. 554, and what was ruled in sundry causes aris- [307 U.S. 174, 178] ing under the Harrison Narcotic Act2-United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916, 241 U.S. 394 , 36 S.Ct. 658, Ann.Cas.1917D, 854; United States v. Doremus, 1919, 249 U.S. 86, 94 , 39 S.Ct. 214; Linder v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 5 , 45 S.Ct. 446, 39 A.L.R. 229; Alston v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 289 , 47 S.Ct. 634; Nigro v. United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 332 , 48 S.Ct. 388-the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' 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. Certainly 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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'

'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, be- [307 U.S. 174, 181] ing a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....'

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening's Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: 'The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.'

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,' with certain exceptions, 'shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.'

Also that 'Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [307 U.S. 174, 182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.'

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 [307 U.S. 174, 183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.
Footnotes

[ Footnote 1 ] Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, 48 Stat. 1236-1240, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132 et seq.:

'That for the purposes of (sections 1132 to 1132q) this Act-

'Sec. 1 (Section 1132). (a) The term 'firearm' means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except

a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition, (The Act of April 10, 1936, c. 169, 49 Stat. 1192, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132, added the words) but does not include any rifle which is within the foregoing provisions solely by reason of the length of its barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if its barrel is sixteen inches or more in length.

'Sec. 3 ( 1132b). (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm, such tax to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary; and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, hereinafter provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm.

'Sec. 4 ( 1132c). (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under (sections 1132 to 1132q) this Act: Provided, That, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof.

'(c) Every person so transferring a firearm shall set forth in each copy of such order the manufacturer's number or other mark identifying such firearm, and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner. The original thereof with stamps affixed, shall be returned to the applicant.

'(d) No person shall transfer a firearm which has previously been transferred on or after the (thirtieth day after June 26, 1934), effective date of this Act, unless such

person, in addition to complying with subsection (c), transfers therewith the stamp-affixed order provided for in this section for each such prior transfer, in compliance with such regulations as may be prescribed under ( sections 1132 to 1132q) this Act for proof of payment of all taxes on such firearms.

'Sec. 5 ( 1132d). (a) Within sixty days after the (thirtieth day after June 26, 1934) effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this section with respect to any firearm acquired after the (thirtieth day after June 26, 1934) effective date of, and in conformity with the provisions of, (sections 1132 to 1132q) this Act.

'Sec. 6 ( 1132e). It shall be unlawful for any person to receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of section (1132b or 1132c) 3 or 4 of this Act.

'Sec. 11 ( 1132j). It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section ( 1132d) 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section (1132c of this title) 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce.

'Sec. 12 ( 1132k). The Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary for carrying the provisions of (sections 1132 to 1132q) this Act into effect.

'Sec. 14 ( 1132m). Any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of (sections 1132 to 1132q) this Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.

'Sec. 16 ( 1132o). If any provision of (sections 1132 to 1132q) this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of (sections 1132 to 1132q) the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

'Sec. 18 ( 1132q). This (chapter (1132 to 1132q)) Act may be cited as the 'National Firearms Act."

[ Footnote 2 ] Act December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785, February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1130, 26 U.S.C.A. 1040-1054, 1383-1391.

[ Footnote 3 ] Concerning The Militia-Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 6 S.Ct. 580; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 , 17 S.Ct. 326; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556; Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347; Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619, 3 L.R.A., N.S., 168, 115 Am.St.Rep. 196, 7 Ann.Cas. 925; People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537, 235 N. W. 245, 82 A.L.R. 341; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455; State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 14 S.E. 9, 14 L.R.A. 600; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Vol. 1, p. 729; Story on The Constitution, 5th Ed., Vol. 2, p. 646; Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X, p. 471, 474.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:19:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
So write to the textbook company with your refutation and ask them to change the next edition to include an opposing view.

Keep copies of your correspondence and post them here.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:13:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
This is pissing me off. We're supposed to be writing a case breif for next wednesday on US v Miller and the textbook for the class has a page about the case. The author of the book summarizes the case as "The supreme court ruled that the second amendment is a collective right" which is blatantly false given the facts of the case. It fails to mention that Miller was dead and there was no attorney representing him. It fails to menton that the court was intentionally mislead by the US attorneys. It then goes on to say something to the effect of "The people who believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right are a vast minority" which i have evidence to be false from numerous polls. It then goes on to say that the Miller case is cited by those who seek to restrict guns as often as it is ignored by the pro-gun crowd" which is total BS. It then went into some rhetoric about the "powerful gun lobby." At the end of the chapter a question for thought is "why does the gun rights crowd choose to ignore the miller case?"

This is about as bad as i've seen something claiming to be a textbook.





So what you do is write the correct answer, then defend your answer by citing sources other than your textbook. Systematically rip that shit apart, but be academic about it.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:27:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
This is pissing me off. We're supposed to be writing a case breif for next wednesday on US v Miller and the textbook for the class has a page about the case. The author of the book summarizes the case as "The supreme court ruled that the second amendment is a collective right" which is blatantly false given the facts of the case. It fails to mention that Miller was dead and there was no attorney representing him. It fails to menton that the court was intentionally mislead by the US attorneys. It then goes on to say something to the effect of "The people who believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right are a vast minority" which i have evidence to be false from numerous polls. It then goes on to say that the Miller case is cited by those who seek to restrict guns as often as it is ignored by the pro-gun crowd" which is total BS. It then went into some rhetoric about the "powerful gun lobby." At the end of the chapter a question for thought is "why does the gun rights crowd choose to ignore the miller case?"

This is about as bad as i've seen something claiming to be a textbook.



Unfortunately most textbooks found in academia contain lots of problems like the one you cite.



Actually, my old A Beka history book from high school cited Ruby Ridge and Waco as massive abuses of government power and perfect examples of why the Second Amendment exists. It also went into pretty good detail.

So don't loose all faith in academia.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:40:08 AM EDT
Akil Amar, Professor of Law at Yale University and author of The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale, (1990) has written: "The states' rights reading puts great weight on the word `militia', but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to `the people' not `the states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical when the constitution means `states' it says so. Thus as noted above, `the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same `people' at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely citizens."

Top Top