Zone1 Why not just amend the National Firearms Act to include ARs and AKs?

[alang1216]

And yet, the court did not in an any way question that Miller, not a member of any militia, had standing to invoke a defense under the 2nd.

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

The decision tunred on the servicability of the weapon in question, not if Miller was a member of the militia.

If that is not clear, have a 2nd grader read it to you/.

Let me clarify for those for who English is a second language: "the Second Amendment was [NOT] to protect the rights of individuals to own guns"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me clarify for those for who English is a second language: "the Second Amendment was [NOT] to protect the rights of individuals to own guns"

yes, it was, a militia cannot exist if individual citizens do not own and possess weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me clarify for those for who English is a second language: "the Second Amendment was [NOT] to protect the rights of individuals to own guns"

You have no rational or factual basis for your opinion,; no amount of prepubescent posturing will change this.

And then, the obvious arguments to the contrary:
The right of the people.
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia.
The people.

No one has the right to be part of the militia, so the exercise right to keep and bear arms cannot be tied to service the militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me clarify for those for who English is a second language: "the Second Amendment was [NOT] to protect the rights of individuals to own guns"

Let me clarify for you:

The Miller decision turned on the serviceability of the weapon in question, not if Miller was a member of the militia.

 

[Concerned American]

One leftist Justice (Jackson) has already recused herself.

She should recuse herself from the court until she takes a basic biology class and determine what is a man or a woman.

 

[alang1216]

yes, it was, a militia cannot exist if individual citizens do not own and possess weapons.

I certainly respect your legal opinion (which law school did you attend?) but that is exactly NOT what the Miller decision said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I certainly respect your legal opinion (which law school did you attend?) but that is exactly NOT what the Miller decision said.

The Miller decision turned on the serviceability of the weapon in question, not if Miller was a member of the militia.
Which mean it is exactly NOT what YOU said.

 

[alang1216]

You have no rational or factual basis for your opinion,; no amount of prepubescent posturing will change this.

And then, the obvious arguments to the contrary:
The right of the people.
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia.
The people.

No one has the right to be part of the militia, so the exercise right to keep and bear arms cannot be tied to service the militia.

You can make any arguments you want except for what is contained in the Miller decision. Moot anyway since some activist judges on the supreme court rewrote precedence in 2008.

 

[alang1216]

Let me clarify for you:

The Miller decision turned on the serviceability of the weapon in question, not if Miller was a member of the militia.

And contained in that decision is language that explicitly states the 2nd was not an individual right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can make any arguments you want except for what is contained in the Miller decision.

Thank you fo demonstrating that you have no rational or factual basis for your opinion,; no amount of prepubescent posturing will change this.

Moot anyway since some activist judges on the supreme court rewrote precedence in 2008.

Again, you have no rational or factual basis for your opinion.

Scalia:
Justice Stevens places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) . ...

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “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.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did “not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” post, at 42–43, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most Justice Stevens can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment .

 

[M14 Shooter]

And contained in that decision is language that explicitly states the 2nd was not an individual right.

I certainly respect your legal opinion (which law school did you attend?) but that is exactly NOT what the Miller decision said.

You statement is a lie. No such statement was made..
Why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[alang1216]

Thank you fo demonstrating that you have no rational or factual basis for your opinion,; no amount of prepubescent posturing will change this.

Again, you have no rational or factual basis for your opinion.

Scalia:
Justice Stevens places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) . ...

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “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.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did “not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” post, at 42–43, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most Justice Stevens can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment .

As you noted, not everyone agreed with Scalia:

“District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench,” [Justice Stevens] wrote in The Atlantic in May. In 2008, Stevens wrote the principal dissent in the 5–4 decision, strongly arguing that the Second Amendment only protected a collective right to bear arms as part of militia service. The majority, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded otherwise.

Heller was a watershed moment for originalism, a school of legal interpretation that generally argues that the Constitution’s provisions should be interpreted according to their original public meaning. Scalia, one of the early originalist apostles, wielded an array of historical and legal sources to find an individual right to bear arms in the amendment for the first time. With five originalist-minded jurists now sitting on the high court, Stevens’s rebuttal is more salient than ever.

Before Heller, the Supreme Court had never considered whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms. Then again, it had only heard a handful of Second Amendment cases in its two-century history, and its decisions were hardly exemplary. The court’s 1876 ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank, where it held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, hamstrung federal efforts to protect black freedpeople in the South from white supremacist terrorism. In 1939, the justices issued a perfunctory ruling in U.S. v. Miller that the amendment did not protect sawed-off shotguns because they were not “ordinary military equipment.”

 

[M14 Shooter]

Before Heller, the Supreme Court had never considered whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms

Interesting.
How does this support your claim that "activist judges on the supreme court rewrote precedence in 2008"?
How does this support your claim that "contained [in the Miller} decision is language that explicitly states the 2nd was not an individual right"?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Interesting.
How does this support yor claim that "activist judges on the supreme court rewrote precedence in 2008"?
How does this suppor tyour claim that "contained [in the Miller} decision is language that explicitly states the 2nd was not an individual right"?

It's funny, liberal believe that when justices base their decisions on the Constitution, they are "activist judges" but when justices make up "rights" out of whole cloth, they are wise and judicial justices.

 

[alang1216]

Interesting.
How does this support your claim that "activist judges on the supreme court rewrote precedence in 2008"?
How does this support your claim that "contained [in the Miller} decision is language that explicitly states the 2nd was not an individual right"?

I'm giving up, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

 

[alang1216]

It's funny, liberal believe that when justices base their decisions on the Constitution, they are "activist judges" but when justices make up "rights" out of whole cloth, they are wise and judicial justices.

When justices reshape decades of precedent they are "activist judges". When they rule as we'd like they are 'good' and we applaud them, I get that but it changes nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm giving up, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

Awww...
Did you disprove your own claims?
Why yes, yes you did.
This is what happens when you're FoS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When justices reshape decades of precedent they are "activist judges".

According to you:

Scalia, etc, are not activist judges.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Before Heller, the Supreme Court had never considered whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms

Interesting.
How does this support your claim that "activist judges on the supreme court rewrote precedence in 2008"?
How does this support your claim that "contained [in the Miller} decision is language that explicitly states the 2nd was not an individual right"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When justices reshape decades of precedent they are "activist judges".

According to you:

Scalia, etc, are not activist judges.