Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:06:34 AM EDT
In light of nationwide's post www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=421623. I was thinking of the Miller decision.


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.



In the case, the judge stated that in absence of evidence from the defense or otherwise, the Court could not take judicial notice on whether the weapon in question was protected under the Second Amendment. I have since heard it discussed that the weapon was indeed fit for the common defense and for militia purposes, in that similar weapons (sawed-off shotgun) were used in trench warfare in WW1.

With the above being the case, would it be possible today, if another second amendment challenge were brought before the Court, that this information could be submitted in reference to the Miller case in order to clarify the stance that the decision favors more to the side of the Second Amendment specifically protecting military type weapons rather than the interpretation of protection only for militia members (read by most as the National Guard)?

Or had the moment passed when the case was decided with the lack of evidence and defense in 1939?
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 11:56:59 AM EDT
Yes. This is why the Supremes refuse to hear 2nd Amendment cases.

Link Posted: 12/26/2005 12:23:58 PM EDT
That did seem to be the case to me from the reading. The issue for the judge seemed not to be whether or not he was a member of the militia, but whether the weapon was protected under the Second Amendment. The ruling does seem pretty clear regarding that point, it just somewhat skirts around it by pointing out that there was no evidence to support it in the case of this particular weapon.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 12:47:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By man_of_few_words:
In light of nationwide's post www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=421623. I was thinking of the Miller decision.


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.



In the case, the judge stated that in absence of evidence from the defense or otherwise, the Court could not take judicial notice on whether the weapon in question was protected under the Second Amendment. I have since heard it discussed that the weapon was indeed fit for the common defense and for militia purposes, in that similar weapons (sawed-off shotgun) were used in trench warfare in WW1.

With the above being the case, would it be possible today, if another second amendment challenge were brought before the Court, that this information could be submitted in reference to the Miller case in order to clarify the stance that the decision favors more to the side of the Second Amendment specifically protecting military type weapons rather than the interpretation of protection only for militia members (read by most as the National Guard)?

Or had the moment passed when the case was decided with the lack of evidence and defense in 1939?



What was said, was the if a weapon was a type that had an intrisic militia value, then it was protected under the Second Amendment, and the SC didn't see that the sawed off shotgun served an intrisic militia value (and that was incorrect).

Hence, the NFA is unonstitutional, in regards to taxing and regulating firearms that are used by the military (such as the M-16 family, M-60, M-2400, M-249, 1911, M9, ect). Which ALSO MEANS that if a weapon DOESN'T have an intrisic militia value, then it CAN be regulated (such as O/U shotguns, Jennings/Bryco/Rave pistols). I'd give up the ability to buy a POS bryco to be able to have unfettered access to an M-16.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 12:52:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:

Originally Posted By man_of_few_words:
In light of nationwide's post www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=421623. I was thinking of the Miller decision.


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.



In the case, the judge stated that in absence of evidence from the defense or otherwise, the Court could not take judicial notice on whether the weapon in question was protected under the Second Amendment. I have since heard it discussed that the weapon was indeed fit for the common defense and for militia purposes, in that similar weapons (sawed-off shotgun) were used in trench warfare in WW1.

With the above being the case, would it be possible today, if another second amendment challenge were brought before the Court, that this information could be submitted in reference to the Miller case in order to clarify the stance that the decision favors more to the side of the Second Amendment specifically protecting military type weapons rather than the interpretation of protection only for militia members (read by most as the National Guard)?

Or had the moment passed when the case was decided with the lack of evidence and defense in 1939?



What was said, was the , then if a weapon was a type that had an intrisic militia valueit was protected under the Second Amendment, and the SC didn't see that the sawed off shotgun served an intrisic militia value (and that was incorrect).

Hence, the NFA is unonstitutional, in regards to taxing and regulating firearms that are used by the military (such as the M-16 family, M-60, M-2400, M-249, 1911, M9, ect). Which ALSO MEANS that if a weapon DOESN'T have an intrisic militia value, then it CAN be regulated (such as O/U shotguns, Jennings/Bryco/Rave pistols). I'd give up the ability to buy a POS bryco to be able to have unfettered access to an M-16.



That would also be my interpritation of the ruling, and thus any further restriction on NFA or even Semi-Auto "Military" type weapons mentioned during the ban would specifically be protected, thus any further attempt to ban said weapond would be in violation of the 2A (I know it IS but for the libs sake.."

Interesting
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 12:57:52 PM EDT
Tag
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:03:18 PM EDT
Imagine if MGs were unregulated? $200 beater M16s!!!
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:08:15 PM EDT
NFA type weapons are now the norm, not the exception, in warfare.

SBRs, SBSs, MGs, grenade launchers, etc are what are used now.
Of course Miller had nothing to do with logic in the first place, only a desire to infringe on the 2nd.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:48:35 PM EDT
The Court had no evidence that short barreled shotguns were Militia 'cuz Miller and co-hort had boogied and no one showed up to present a case.

Only the most perverted interpetation of Miller can get any more out of it than that.

The Court indirectly affirmed that Miller et al were members of the Militia, they had the right to keep and bear, and M-16s are OK.

As an aside; the orginal machine gun control laws were implemented as a tax issue since the federal government of the time recognized they did not have the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms.

Look whats happened to us.

Regards,
Mild Bill

<­BR>



Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:51:01 PM EDT
Is Miller in jail? If not, tell him to make a M16 and take it to court, Ill show proof that the military uses the M16.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:54:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Imagine if MGs were unregulated? $200 beater M16s!!!



would people finally realize then that full auto is overrated?
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:55:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Imagine if MGs were unregulated? $200 beater M16s!!!



would people finally realize then that full auto is overrated?



Its not overrated, but it is expensive...
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 1:58:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Is Miller in jail? If not, tell him to make a M16 and take it to court, Ill show proof that the military uses the M16.



Umm Hes dead. the case was in the 30s


What the US vs Miller case said is that if the gun is not used by the militia its not protected under the 2nd admendment. The only thing the court screw up was saying that a sawed off shotgun had nothing to do with the militia
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:00:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Imagine if MGs were unregulated? $200 beater M16s!!!



would people finally realize then that full auto is overrated?



Its not overrated, but it is expensive...



full auto is best at turning money into noise
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:11:06 PM EDT
IIRC Miller was deceased and therefore no defense was offered by the time the case reached SCOTUS. Hence the wording of the ruling "In the absence of any evidence"... This has been discussed for years, and despite what the gun control types like to claim, appears to be a rather pro-gun precedent SC decision.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:14:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Imagine if MGs were unregulated? $200 beater M16s!!!



would people finally realize then that full auto is overrated?



Its the principle though!
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:15:07 PM EDT
Miller was dead before his case went to trial, wasn't he?
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:17:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:27:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 3:59:09 PM EDT by nightstalker]
Still the fact that the Court was narrowly looking at this case by "qualifying" (or not) a weapon by it's present military use was the narrowest of definitions of the 2nd Amendment. By their interpretation they are making the right dependent upon it's relationship to the militia. Most 2nd Amendment types see the militia as a subordinate clause, and not a qualifier to your right to keep and bear arms. If it were so, then women wouldn't have always had the right, not to mention blacks.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:51:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NonConformist:

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Imagine if MGs were unregulated? $200 beater M16s!!!



would people finally realize then that full auto is overrated?



Its the principle though!



Yes and yes but it's fun enough to justify.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:54:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Is Miller in jail? If not, tell him to make a M16 and take it to court, Ill show proof that the military uses the M16.



Umm Hes dead. the case was in the 30s


What the US vs Miller case said is that if the gun is not used by the militia its not protected under the 2nd admendment. The only thing the court screw up was saying that a sawed off shotgun had nothing to do with the militia



That certainly poses a problem with Miller bringing a M16 to the desk, doesnt it?
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 3:10:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
NFA type weapons are now the norm, not the exception, in warfare.

SBRs, SBSs, MGs, grenade launchers, etc are what are used now.
Of course Miller had nothing to do with logic in the first place, only a desire to infringe on the 2nd.



Most needs-to-be-shouted-from-the-rooftops excellent point. Oh, and + 1.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 3:14:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By gaspain:

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Imagine if MGs were unregulated? $200 beater M16s!!!



would people finally realize then that full auto is overrated?



Its not overrated, but it is expensive...



full auto is best at turning money into noise



So's a slot machine but I'll take full auto fun any day.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 4:57:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 4:57:55 PM EDT by A_Free_Man]
So, by Miller, AR-15's, with pistol grips, flash suppressors, and 30 rnd mags "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". (So much for AWB's)

And from Perpich vs. US, we have the ruling that the National Guard is NOT the militia as spoken of in the 2nd Amendment, but rather it is the PEOPLE themselves that make up the militia.

So, the people ("militia") have a right to keep and bear arms of a type that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".


The SCOTUS does not want these two cases mentioned in a 2nd Amendment case. This would be the undoing of the '34 NFA, the '68 GCA's "sporting purposes" BS, and the '89 MG ban. The only way they can stop these laws from being null and void is to not hear 2nd Amendment cases.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 5:05:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
So, by Miller, AR-15's, with pistol grips, flash suppressors, and 30 rnd mags "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". (So much for AWB's)

And from Perpich vs. US, we have the ruling that the National Guard is NOT the militia as spoken of in the 2nd Amendment, but rather it is the PEOPLE themselves that make up the militia.

So, the people ("militia") have a right to keep and bear arms of a type that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".


The SCOTUS does not want these two cases mentioned in a 2nd Amendment case. This would be the undoing of the '34 NFA, the '68 GCA's "sporting purposes" BS, and the '89 MG ban. The only way they can stop these laws from being null and void is to not hear 2nd Amendment cases.



you hit the nail on the head.

if i win the lotto i will make a bunch of M16, and be like "come and get them Bitches" and do my best to get it to the SC
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 5:11:09 PM EDT
No, what will happen is (a) you are found guilty and go to jail. (b) THEN you have to appeal. It goes higher up. Then if you win there, the gov will appeal, and it will go higher. And whether you go free or not is not important (to you it is).

But to the gov, the most important thing is that it will never go to SCOTUS and have precident set. They would rather that you walk on appeal. And SCOTUS simply will not hear it.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 5:17:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
No, what will happen is (a) you are found guilty and go to jail. (b) THEN you have to appeal. It goes higher up. Then if you win there, the gov will appeal, and it will go higher. And whether you go free or not is not important (to you it is).

But to the gov, the most important thing is that it will never go to SCOTUS and have precident set. They would rather that you walk on appeal. And SCOTUS simply will not hear it.



No, what they know, and what they want, is that SCOTUS will probably just refuse to hear the case.
You sit in Club Fed, and the 2nd continues to be infringed upon. The gov't and its JBTs win by default.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:16:35 AM EDT
Another point that I am curious about is this; it always seems that we (gun owners) are always calling out the mantra "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," when legislative attacks are set upon the Second Amendment. It therefore seems very strange in such cases as these in that to have standing, you must have actually "violated" the law and in essence become an outlaw in the name of justice to bring up the challenge. Such as in seems in the case of Bob Stewart.

But along the lines of cases such as Miller, he was a bank robber. It seemed merely incidental to him that there was a supreme court case involving the second amendment that centered around his actions (on running across state lines with the NFA weapon).

This brings me to my point that it seems we have a strange system of justice in that you have to violate the law to challenge the law. Then you have two types of violators- those who are really acting in the name of justice to get the law struck down judicially as unconstititutional, and those "real" criminals that we always saw that would rather the ordinary citizens not have guns in the first place in order that the criminals' jobs could be easier.

In these cases, it seems as though we have some strange and unlikely allies, but are they really allies?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 6:53:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By man_of_few_words:
Another point that I am curious about is this; it always seems that we (gun owners) are always calling out the mantra "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," when legislative attacks are set upon the Second Amendment. It therefore seems very strange in such cases as these in that to have standing, you must have actually "violated" the law and in essence become an outlaw in the name of justice to bring up the challenge. Such as in seems in the case of Bob Stewart.

But along the lines of cases such as Miller, he was a bank robber. It seemed merely incidental to him that there was a supreme court case involving the second amendment that centered around his actions (on running across state lines with the NFA weapon).

This brings me to my point that it seems we have a strange system of justice in that you have to violate the law to challenge the law. Then you have two types of violators- those who are really acting in the name of justice to get the law struck down judicially as unconstititutional, and those "real" criminals that we always saw that would rather the ordinary citizens not have guns in the first place in order that the criminals' jobs could be easier.

In these cases, it seems as though we have some strange and unlikely allies, but are they really allies?



No, of course they are not.

Perhaps a class action suit against some commie state. Something that could be taken to a federal level and go to SCOTUS. Not an attorney though.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:19:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
No, what will happen is (a) you are found guilty and go to jail. (b) THEN you have to appeal. It goes higher up. Then if you win there, the gov will appeal, and it will go higher. And whether you go free or not is not important (to you it is).

But to the gov, the most important thing is that it will never go to SCOTUS and have precident set. They would rather that you walk on appeal. And SCOTUS simply will not hear it.



No, what they know, and what they want, is that SCOTUS will probably just refuse to hear the case.
You sit in Club Fed, and the 2nd continues to be infringed upon. The gov't and its JBTs win by default.



70,000 members on this board alone contributing $20.00 each for a class action lawsuit would get us a long way toward that goal. Even the government and SC couldn't turn their backs on that many people.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:25:57 AM EDT
US -vs- Miller should protect our Right to own M4's, M16's, SAW's, etc....
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:31:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 7:38:13 AM EDT by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By jimtash9:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
No, what will happen is (a) you are found guilty and go to jail. (b) THEN you have to appeal. It goes higher up. Then if you win there, the gov will appeal, and it will go higher. And whether you go free or not is not important (to you it is).

But to the gov, the most important thing is that it will never go to SCOTUS and have precident set. They would rather that you walk on appeal. And SCOTUS simply will not hear it.



No, what they know, and what they want, is that SCOTUS will probably just refuse to hear the case.
You sit in Club Fed, and the 2nd continues to be infringed upon. The gov't and its JBTs win by default.



70,000 members on this board alone contributing $20.00 each for a class action lawsuit would get us a long way toward that goal. Even the government and SC couldn't turn their backs on that many people.



We need another conservative justice on SCOTUS and then we have to have a firm handle on the time frame involved. It would take several years to work our way through the process. A lot can change in the meantime.

NRA and GOA really need to lead the fight in this and find a suitable case.
I don't live in a commie state but I would be willing to contribute.

Right case, right attorneys, right judges. That's what we are looking for.
The commies seem to be able to direct their bullshit cases to judges they know will decide in their favor. Why can't we ever seem to do the same?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:39:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By jimtash9:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
No, what will happen is (a) you are found guilty and go to jail. (b) THEN you have to appeal. It goes higher up. Then if you win there, the gov will appeal, and it will go higher. And whether you go free or not is not important (to you it is).

But to the gov, the most important thing is that it will never go to SCOTUS and have precident set. They would rather that you walk on appeal. And SCOTUS simply will not hear it.



No, what they know, and what they want, is that SCOTUS will probably just refuse to hear the case.
You sit in Club Fed, and the 2nd continues to be infringed upon. The gov't and its JBTs win by default.



70,000 members on this board alone contributing $20.00 each for a class action lawsuit would get us a long way toward that goal. Even the government and SC couldn't turn their backs on that many people.



We need another conservative justice on SCOTUS and then we have to have a firm handle on the time frame involved. It would take several years to work our way through the process. A lot can change in the meantime.

NRA and GOA really need to lead the fight in this and find a suitable case.
I don't live in a commie state but I owuld be willing to contribute.

Right case, right attorneys, right judges. That's what we are looking for.
The commies seem to be able to direct their bullshit cases to judges they know will decide in theri favor. Whay can't we ever seem to do the same?



With Alito confirmed we have 2 votes of 9 I really do not think Scalia ans Thomas will vote to overturn Miller and even if they did who is the 5th vote?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:44:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:


With Alito confirmed we have 2 votes of 9 I really do not think Scalia ans Thomas will vote to overturn Miller and even if they did who is the 5th vote?





I don't want to over turn Miller, I want to ENFORCE it.


Miller says we have a Right to own military weapons. M16's, M4's, M14's, SAW's, etc....
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:52:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Mattl:


With Alito confirmed we have 2 votes of 9 I really do not think Scalia ans Thomas will vote to overturn Miller and even if they did who is the 5th vote?





I don't want to over turn Miller, I want to ENFORCE it.


Miller says we have a Right to own military weapons. M16's, M4's, M14's, SAW's, etc....



Thats not the collectivists libtard view in our Gov and courts, that libtard view is dominant. Also like they said it would make non-military firearms regulatable. You can own a MG but no a O/U 12 Guage that makes no sense practical or not?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:58:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:


Thats not the collectivists libtard view in our Gov and courts, that libtard view is dominant. Also like they said it would make non-military firearms regulatable. You can own a MG but no a O/U 12 Guage that makes no sense practical or not?





Yes, it makes perfect sense if you read in INTENT of the 2nd Amendment.


The 2nd Amendment was to guarantee your Right to own arms to be used against the Goverment if necessary.

The 2nd Amendment was NOT intended to guarantee your right to own hunting guns, since they felt that was a given anyway.


If we enforced Miller and started passing out the M16's, I doubt they would bother with your over & under shotgun
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:01:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By jimtash9:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
No, what will happen is (a) you are found guilty and go to jail. (b) THEN you have to appeal. It goes higher up. Then if you win there, the gov will appeal, and it will go higher. And whether you go free or not is not important (to you it is).

But to the gov, the most important thing is that it will never go to SCOTUS and have precident set. They would rather that you walk on appeal. And SCOTUS simply will not hear it.



No, what they know, and what they want, is that SCOTUS will probably just refuse to hear the case.
You sit in Club Fed, and the 2nd continues to be infringed upon. The gov't and its JBTs win by default.



70,000 members on this board alone contributing $20.00 each for a class action lawsuit would get us a long way toward that goal. Even the government and SC couldn't turn their backs on that many people.



We need another conservative justice on SCOTUS and then we have to have a firm handle on the time frame involved. It would take several years to work our way through the process. A lot can change in the meantime.

NRA and GOA really need to lead the fight in this and find a suitable case.
I don't live in a commie state but I owuld be willing to contribute.

Right case, right attorneys, right judges. That's what we are looking for.
The commies seem to be able to direct their bullshit cases to judges they know will decide in theri favor. Whay can't we ever seem to do the same?



With Alito confirmed we have 2 votes of 9 I really do not think Scalia ans Thomas will vote to overturn Miller and even if they did who is the 5th vote?



1]Going after Miller as our first case is not a really a very good idea IMO.

2]I am curious why you don't think we could count on Scalia and Thomas?

First perhaps we should get SCOTUS to establish that the 2nd is an individual right which should overturn thousands of gun laws. Getting the '86 MG ban overturned as a result is very worthwhile to me. Having to do a form1 and get a tax stamp is just not that big a deal IMO and we have bigger things to worry about.
Miller is something we could tackle later as it is clearly unconstitutional, a legal and technical error, but it would threaten everything else we would be working for to lump them all together. I do think we could get the SBR, AOW, SBS portions of the NFA overturned however. Just trying to be pragmatic about it, not exactly my forte!
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:10:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By jimtash9:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
No, what will happen is (a) you are found guilty and go to jail. (b) THEN you have to appeal. It goes higher up. Then if you win there, the gov will appeal, and it will go higher. And whether you go free or not is not important (to you it is).

But to the gov, the most important thing is that it will never go to SCOTUS and have precident set. They would rather that you walk on appeal. And SCOTUS simply will not hear it.



No, what they know, and what they want, is that SCOTUS will probably just refuse to hear the case.
You sit in Club Fed, and the 2nd continues to be infringed upon. The gov't and its JBTs win by default.



70,000 members on this board alone contributing $20.00 each for a class action lawsuit would get us a long way toward that goal. Even the government and SC couldn't turn their backs on that many people.



We need another conservative justice on SCOTUS and then we have to have a firm handle on the time frame involved. It would take several years to work our way through the process. A lot can change in the meantime.

NRA and GOA really need to lead the fight in this and find a suitable case.
I don't live in a commie state but I owuld be willing to contribute.

Right case, right attorneys, right judges. That's what we are looking for.
The commies seem to be able to direct their bullshit cases to judges they know will decide in theri favor. Whay can't we ever seem to do the same?



With Alito confirmed we have 2 votes of 9 I really do not think Scalia ans Thomas will vote to overturn Miller and even if they did who is the 5th vote?



1]Going after Miller as our first case is not a really a very good idea IMO.

2]I am curious why you don't think we could count on Scalia and Thomas?

First perhaps we should get SCOTUS to establish that the 2nd is an individual right which should overturn thousands of gun laws. Getting the '86 MG ban overturned as a result is very worthwhile to me. Having to do a form1 and get a tax stamp is just not that big a deal IMO and we have bigger things to worry about.
Miller is something we could tackle later as it is clearly unconstitutional, a legal and technical error, but it would threaten everything else we would be working for to lump them all together. I do think we could get the SBR, AOW, SBS portions of the NFA overturned however. Just trying to be pragmatic about it, not exactly my forte!



Commerce Clause re-ruling would take care of MG ban and in general cripple BATFE authority at the national level in nearly all thier jurisdictions. Miller leading to overturn of the NFA is considered a threat by our government not because of MGs but because of explosives/ordinance. Imagine walking into a gunshop and walking out with a LAWS or RPG-7? If you were a congressmen would you repeal the law preventing that? I would because I believe nature finds balance most are not that confident.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:12:33 AM EDT
Any chance Alito and Bolton might want to revisit Miller???
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:20:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
If it were so, then women wouldn't have always had the right, not to mention blacks.



We didnt. The roots of gun control in this country, as in most countries, are racist. The first 100 or so years of them mostly aimed at keeping Blacks unarmed and subserviant.

And yet the sheep keep voting for Massa Gore & Kerry and their gun control laws, meanwhile Condi is up in the Big House an absolute Second Ammendment purist Aunt Jemihma.






Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:26:42 AM EDT
When you really get down to it you must ask why SCOTUS heard Miller in '39?
I cannot imagine SCOTUS hearing such a case today and it was almost a forgone conclusion which is what I suspect they were after.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:30:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GaryM:
Any chance Alito and Bolton might want to revisit Miller???



What does Bolton have to do with it? Commerce Clause and Abortion rights are the focus on Alito by the Senate. A reruling of the C.C. tells the two houses they cannot do alot of shit( alot more than just G.C. laws) they have been doing for years, naturally they do not like the idea of losing power and authority. It is all up to Roberts and if he is gun friendly he will likely avoid miller-esque cases till Alito and likely one other Conservative/Libertarian is aboard. U.S.S.C. rulings are binding and effectively unchallengable for the most part you really do not want a bad ruling.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 4:32:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By GaryM:
Any chance Alito and Bolton might want to revisit Miller???



What does Bolton have to do with it? Commerce Clause and Abortion rights are the focus on Alito by the Senate. A reruling of the C.C. tells the two houses they cannot do alot of shit( alot more than just G.C. laws) they have been doing for years, naturally they do not like the idea of losing power and authority. It is all up to Roberts and if he is gun friendly he will likely avoid miller-esque cases till Alito and likely one other Conservative/Libertarian is aboard. U.S.S.C. rulings are binding and effectively unchallengable for the most part you really do not want a bad ruling.



Oops, don't know how I got Boltons name, I meant Roberts.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 7:12:13 AM EDT
I think Miller was intended to be a test case of the '34 NFA.

But in fact, it seems to reject it.

No, you don't want to overturn Miller, you want to overturn the '34 NFA.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:26:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
I think Miller was intended to be a test case of the '34 NFA.

But in fact, it seems to reject it.

No, you don't want to overturn Miller, you want to overturn the '34 NFA.



And Miller, in fact, seems to give us the ammo to do so.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:48:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
<snip>
...If we enforced Miller and started passing out the M16's, I doubt they would bother with your over & under shotgun



Yeah, but that would be sweet justice to all of the 'hunters' who said, for all these years, "Whatcha need that for? Cain't kill no deer or pheasant wit' dat."

I hunt, but I'd give up my hunting guns to own military weapons any day. And I'd enjoy watching the once-a-year, three shot shooters squirm.

And who says I can't kill a deer with a SAW?

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:57:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:03:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 9:05:05 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
FWIW, MILLER WAS NOT DEAD, when Miller vs US trial was held as anyone who has read "Unintended Consequences" will know......

BTW, Anyone seriously interested in this case should also be interested in the "orginal" case held in Judge Ragon's court in the Western District of Arkansas, and information on BOTH these cases are available at any decent law library.

I have a copy of both cases, (which cost me $20, as I was too lazy and far too stupid to figure out how to find the information myself and simply paid a college kid the dinero to pull the cases for me to copy, as some law libraries can be a bitch to find shit in) which I got immediately after reading about it in the aforementioned book by John Ross.

The US Supreme court case came along around 2 years after the original rulling which declared the NFA act un-constitutional, (as Judge Heartsill Ragon was a WWI veteran and very familar with sawed-off shotguns used in "trench-clearing" of that war).



If you haven't familarized yourself with the particulars, WTF are ya posting to this thread for?????

Mike

ps - even Miller's attorney, (which received the vast sum of $200 for defending Miller) didn't show at the US Supreme Court in defense of his aquittal of Miller as by then according to Ross in the book Miller had dissappeared back into the moonshine hills, and he weren't collecting any additional money from him.......
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:40:00 AM EDT
Force of LAW

Public justice

These two precepts are selectively applied and neither one is accomplished for that reason.

Instead of appealing to the supreme court, people need to invoke the common law and apply their own public justice and force of law.


Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:40:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By man_of_few_words:
Another point that I am curious about is this; it always seems that we (gun owners) are always calling out the mantra "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," when legislative attacks are set upon the Second Amendment. It therefore seems very strange in such cases as these in that to have standing, you must have actually "violated" the law and in essence become an outlaw in the name of justice to bring up the challenge. Such as in seems in the case of Bob Stewart.

But along the lines of cases such as Miller, he was a bank robber. It seemed merely incidental to him that there was a supreme court case involving the second amendment that centered around his actions (on running across state lines with the NFA weapon).

This brings me to my point that it seems we have a strange system of justice in that you have to violate the law to challenge the law. Then you have two types of violators- those who are really acting in the name of justice to get the law struck down judicially as unconstititutional, and those "real" criminals that we always saw that would rather the ordinary citizens not have guns in the first place in order that the criminals' jobs could be easier.

In these cases, it seems as though we have some strange and unlikely allies, but are they really allies?



or one could apply for a post '86 sample, have it denied and then sue.
that way you're not breaking the law only a 'victim' of it.

Wouldn't something along those lines work?


Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:55:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
If it were so, then women wouldn't have always had the right, not to mention blacks.



We didnt. The roots of gun control in this country, as in most countries, are racist. The first 100 or so years of them mostly aimed at keeping Blacks unarmed and subserviant.

And yet the sheep keep voting for Massa Gore & Kerry and their gun control laws, meanwhile Condi is up in the Big House an absolute Second Ammendment purist Aunt Jemihma.





Absolutely true. My comment was mostly rhetorical and mostly meant to show how it WAS an individual right and the evidence was that outrageous decisions by the Supreme Court to keep the right from blacks was still the best evidence that they considered it first and foremost an individual right...for whites. When blacks became full citizens the tactic changed to using local laws (unconstitutional) and taxes to keep guns from blacks. The main thrust of gun control is still racist. No one is worried about a farmer having a gun but they are worried about "inner city dwellers" having one for self defense.



Top Top