HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » United States v. Miller, ...

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:49 PM

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#tab-opinion-1936361

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

Annotation
Primary Holding
Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.


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, willfully, 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 (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4 [§ 5], 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 2, United States Code (June 26, 1934, c. 737, 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.


... ... ...

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, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.


Please take note of the following from the court:
1> Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.
2> In the absence of any evidence...


I highlight #1 to report the court's opinion of what weapons should remain unregulated, in the words of the unanimous Supreme Court, from a case which many favoring everything from outright bans to limits, restrictions and permits often quote.
Ask yourself, "What weapons are appropriate for the state militia?". Such weapons are the ones which "are free from government regulation".

I highlight #2 to indicate that the court pointed to the lack of evidence presented as contributing to the decision. Miller was a known criminal. He had given evidence in court against other criminals. He was a known target for retribution. This is rather well proven by his murder which took place in April of 1939. Miller's appearance in court was prevented by his death. His counsel did not appear either. The only arguments and evidence were presented by the government prosecutor.

For further background see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

44 replies, 6549 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 OP
guillaumeb Dec 2018 #1
gejohnston Dec 2018 #3
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #4
gejohnston Dec 2018 #7
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #8
gejohnston Dec 2018 #11
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #15
gejohnston Dec 2018 #16
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #19
gejohnston Dec 2018 #21
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #22
gejohnston Dec 2018 #23
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #29
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #12
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #14
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #26
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #5
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #6
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #9
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #10
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #13
gejohnston Dec 2018 #17
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #18
gejohnston Dec 2018 #20
sharedvalues Dec 2018 #25
gejohnston Dec 2018 #27
jimmy the one Jan 2019 #38
yagotme Jan 2019 #39
gejohnston Jan 2019 #40
jimmy the one Jan 2019 #41
gejohnston Jan 2019 #42
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2019 #43
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #28
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2018 #24
jimmy the one Jan 2019 #30
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2019 #31
jimmy the one Jan 2019 #34
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2019 #35
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2019 #36
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2019 #44
aikoaiko Jan 2019 #32
jimmy the one Jan 2019 #33
yagotme Jan 2019 #37

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:55 PM

1. What weapons are appropriate to a State militia?

Like the State National Guard?

But the quote references:

Annotation
Primary Holding
Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.



So what are we to infer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 09:00 PM

3. Well regulated means well equiped.

to answer your question, almost any handgun, bolt action rifle, any semiautomatic or automatic weapon. The Walther GSP, a target pistol used in the World Cup and Olympics, probably not protected while a select fire assault rifles would be protected. The reason for the expensive tax stamp and registration instead of a ban, because the sponsors of the bill thought it would be struck down. The "collective right" concept did not exist until recently, and certainly would not be in the BoR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 09:51 PM

4. well-regulated militia member murders his wife

"A member of our well regulated militia uses a gun to murder his wife on Christmas, calls police to confess and say he’s “going to be with her,” then uses the gun to kill himself."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 10:50 PM

7. appeal to emotion,

not a valid argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:38 PM

8. Nope, appeal to facts. Woman murdered.

By well regulated militia member.

Do you not like facts?

Ps every time someone buys guns or ammo, that puts money in the pocket of gun companies. Who donate a portion to the NRA. Who uses it to lobby politicians to allow more kids to be killed so gun companies can make more money.

If you buy ammo or guns, you are complicit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:52 PM

11. about facts,

One example, and you don't know that it wouldn't have happened if he didn't have a gun. I can show you examples of people murdered without guns who would be alive if they had a gun. Also, the number of defensive gun uses, based on peer reviewed science and verified by several studies including Clinton era CDC. Given that most murders in the US, 90 percent, are drug gangs killing each other and any innocent that gets caught in the crossfire. But the Bloombergs and Paul Allens of the world don't care because, well, race and class. There is also not a single example of gun laws reducing crime. Certainly not in Europe, where crime rates were actually lower when there were no gun control laws at all, especially UK, and the few that were were still knife crimes.

PS, everytime someone buys guns and ammo, there is an 11 percent excise tax that goes to endangered specie recovery and other environmental project.
All of the anti gun activism is funded entirely by three billionaires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 12:01 AM

15. Nearly everything you said is false. Please read here.

https://www.vox.com/gun-violence-shootings

It makes me sad that someone on DU could be so brainwashed by rightwing and NRA lies about guns.

Here’s all you need to know: fewer guns, fewer shootings. Period. Fewer kids killed in cities. Fewer wives murdered by gun owners, like my link above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 12:11 AM

16. Vox

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

is click bait trash and a left wing version of Breitbart. It also doesn't refute anything I said. Truth is from facts and logic. It just is. If gun bans worked, Mexico and Brazil would be two of the most peaceful countries in the world, yet we are more peaceful.


End the drug war and fix infrastructure, including repealing zoning ordnances in cities will do more to end gang violence.
It makes me sad that a liberal support authoritarian billionaires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:22 AM

19. Vox is truth seeking media

I’m sorry you feel the need to resort to rightwing talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:26 AM

21. the average Vox writer

sits in his or her cubicle and makes shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:31 AM

22. This is a rightwing talking point.

And it’s an uninformed one to boot.

So. Getting back to gun control— have you purchased any ammo or guns from a gun company lately?
Because if you have, you’re funding the NRA’s lobbying— efforts to allow American children to be killed for profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:48 AM

23. no, it is objective fact

BTW, fill in the blank "talking point" is not an argument. Not a gun company and most of the ammo I buy is not even made in the US. Come to think of it, the last gun I bought was made in Germany. However, the import tax funded wolf recovery in Yellowstone. and wildlife overpasses that keep migration routes in tact. If you didn't buy a gun, ammo, or archery, you didn't pay for it.

Let me ask you this. Buy a bag of pot illegally? Nose candy? If you did, you are funding the drug gangs turn some neighborhoods into free fire zones. If the problem is "gun owners" why is it that in any given year 54 percent of the 3007 counties will have zero homicides while over half of all murders are concentrated in two percent of the counties? The problem is clear
drug gangs, GINI Index, political corruption, poor infrastructure, food deserts.
As long as I have been here, every gun control argument is an example of one or more of the following
ad hoc fallacy
appeal to emotion
bandwagon fallacy
ad homonym
fake statistics
demonization
appeal to authority

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:28 PM

29. An example of an article with internal inconsistencies

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/18/18146455/trump-bump-stock-ban-gun-violence
The Trump administration just banned bump stocks for guns
More than a year after the Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks are officially set to become illegal.
Notice the title uses the past tense "banned" while the first sentence refers to the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:54 PM

12. So if you pay taxes in Ferguson, Missouri...

...are you complicit in the killing of Micheal Brown?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:58 PM

14. No, but if you buy ammo, you're complicit in Sandy Hook

The killer had an assault rifle that NRA CEOs lobbied for, so they could make more money. If you buy ammo or guns, you pay those CEOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:26 AM

26. That just smells like more "flexible logic" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 09:57 PM

5. See the list of small arms here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_States_Armed_Forces

Check with your state as to anything from this list which they don't supply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 08:01 PM

2. And Scalia's later Heller decision was motivated by politics.

Originalism is a bullshit excuse used by Republican judges to issue Republican opinions.

And Scalia died on a rightwing-billionaire-funded gun junket.

The whole gun lobby and the whole Republican Party are hotbeds of liars purchased by billionaires who aim nothing less than to get American kids killed for money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 10:13 PM

6. re: "Originalism is a bullshit excuse..."

I'd take a step back from calling the US Bill of Rights bullshit.

BTW, this was about the Miller decision and ways in which that decision do not favor the arguments of pro-regulation folks.

Republicans are doing what they can to make sure fewer and fewer people ascribe to their objectives. Whatever issues you feel relate as causes for Republicans to act as they do, while perhaps interesting, don't help in the legal sense. Writing meaningful laws that pass constitutional muster should be a goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:40 PM

9. Originalism is Republican bullsh*t. As i said.

For more details on why “originalism” is bullsh*t invented by Republican judges to issue pro-billionaire decisions that harm average Americans, see this constitutional lawyer’s article
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/27/the-scalia-myth/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:49 PM

10. Thanks, I will read it but, respectfully...

...please keep your non-sequitur tangents out of this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:57 PM

13. Respectfully, Scalia, Heller, and "originalism" get Americans killed

And the whole point of this thread is a Supreme Court case that Republican justices weighed in on in Heller vs DC.
So Republican judges and their flawed logic are 100% germane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #13)


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:21 AM

18. Please continue to defend Republican judges nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:24 AM

20. I defend the BoR,

individualism, the Enlightenment, individual liberty, plus objective facts and reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:20 AM

25. "Well-regulated militia"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:02 AM

27. which meant you show up with your own gun and gear

if called and is well equipped. Adding extra words was also common with writers of the era. Read any Jane Austin novel. The people refers to individuals just like it does in the other BoR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 12:02 PM

38. bulloffal on equipped

johnston: Well regulated means well equiped.

johnston, defining 'well regulated': which meant you show up with your own gun and gear if called and is well equipped.

How many times are you going to repeat this bulloffal? Tired of playing whack-a-mole over the years with your specious word twisting and misconceptions disinformation & misinformation.
Point out to me which definition in websters 1825 contemporary dictionary defines 'regulate' as 'equip':

websters 1825 dictionary: REG'ULATE, verb transitive
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulate

Answer GONG, nowhere. Regulate does not mean to equip, nor does equip mean to regulate.
A well regulated militia should be equipped with arms yes when drilling or bearing, but that is an ancillary part of being well regulated.
An UNorganized militia however would not need be equipped with arms, as is seen by the current state of the unorganized militia.

The definition of 'equip' in websters 1825 does indeed define it as providing clothes or items properly so as to dress or to 'habit', and indeed arms can be furnished to military or militia so as to equip them. However, providing arms is simply an example as to what can be used to equip - arms are not the underlying definition of equip. Equip means to dress properly, whatever the body or entity may be. Webster used the example of equipping a regiment as an example.

EQUIP', verb transitive
1. Properly, to dress; to habit. Hence, to furnish with arms, or a complete suit of arms, for military service. Thus we say, to equip men or troops for war; to equip a body of infantry or cavalry. But the word seems to include not only arms, but clothing, baggage, utensils, tents, and all the apparatus of an army, particularly when applied to a body of troops. Hence, to furnish with arms and warlike apparatus; as, to equip a regiment.
2. To furnish with men, artillery and munitions of war, as a ship. Hence, in common language, to fit for sea; to furnish with whatever is necessary for a voyage. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/equip

habit: 3. State of any thing; implying some continuance or permanence; temperament or particular state of a body, formed by nature or induced by extraneous circumstances; as a costive or lax habit of body; a sanguine habit
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/habit



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 03:00 PM

39. To "regulate" the equipment of the militia would apply to #1,

as you want your militia members to show up with the same caliber rifle, same type bayonet, etc. If you show up with an oddball bore size, you would then have to supply all of your own ammunition, and wouldn't be able to draw from the armory's stores.

I understand your argument, as I see "well regulated militia" in the second to mean properly trained, as the militia would be called upon at a moment's notice to repel a foreign invasion, as due to lack of "immediate" communication, the news of an invasion force would be announced with the shot of a cannon from a ship.

"A well regulated militia," covered above. (Note comma at end.)

"being necessary to the security of a free State," Above comma is separating the first part from the second. Why? Is it just one reason/method to ensure the security of a free State? Why not just say the Army? We just got out from under a dictatorship with a free-roaming army that wasn't under control of the local government, and our founders feared a heavy handed central control of the military forces. They wanted the "militia", the common man, to have a say in the government and some ways to counter an overt takeover of the government. To keep the "State", free. (Again, another comma at the end.)

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," Who are the "people"? Are they different from the "people" listed elsewhere in the constitution? And that pesky comma, separating this phrase from the former. Part of the sentence, yes, but separated out. Why, again? The "people" made up the militia, and through history individuals and groups have jumped through twisted hoops to define the members of the "militia", but here, in this short little amendment, lies the crux. Is there an age/sex limit on voting, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.? Why all the effort to separate the "people" definition of this amendment from the others? And, to "keep and bear" arms. Simple, really. To "bear" then pretty means the same as "bear" now. To carry. "I can't bear it." "Litter bearer." Has the definition changed since I slept last? Same with "keep." "Can I keep that?" "Keep this close by." (Another pesky comma.)

"shall not be infringed." Well, another comma to deal with. Beginning to look like a shopping list. Wait, I might be on to something here. A partial list of reasons (clause 1 & 2), defining who (clause 3) and action to be (not) taken. "s)hall not". Easy peasey. And you CAN shout "FIRE" in a packed theater, if the theater is actually on fire. (I know this statement is eventually going to come out, just doing a preemptive strike.) "b)e infringed." Can't ban it. Now, let's look at "regulation". "So, you want to give criminals and the insane guns, huh?" No. Rights from the constitution belong to "citizens" of the State (citizenship being redefined throughout history, as it should have been), and a person that commits a crime as defined by the laws of the state, no longer was considered a "citizen". An immigrant, legal or otherwise, was not considered a citizen until properly naturalized. Therefore, a person locked in jail isn't allowed to bear arms, vote, move freely, etc. "Reasonable" gun laws have made an attempt to "reduce crime", but they usually end up increasing it, as a "criminal", by definition, doesn't follow the law. Background checks are OK, as long as there is an instant "go/no go" answer, otherwise, you are getting into the "infringement" area. We have the capability nowadays to do an instant check, so why delay a right? You just have to make sure crimes are reported into the system.

Is all this so hard to understand? Sometimes, it seems so.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 8, 2019, 04:42 PM

40. I am right, you are wrong.

How many times are you going to repeat this bulloffal? Tired of playing whack-a-mole over the years with your specious word twisting and misconceptions disinformation & misinformation.
Then stop spreading the bullshit and disinformation and I'll spend more time at the range or something.

Gun prohibitionists have no valid arguments. All of the arguments, including yours, are a collection of ad hoc fallacies and fear mongering bullshit. That includes your comparisons of states, ad hoc fallacies.

The BoR were added at the insistence of Anti-Federalists that did not trust future generations to restrict the government enough and protect individual rights. Seems that they were right.

Are you a liberal or an authoritarian? Are you a collectivist or an individualist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 17, 2019, 12:45 PM

41. no rebuttals, just ad homs & cheap shots & tap dancing

johnston wrote: I am right, you are wrong.

You wrote the above while offering no rebuttal to what I provided, only a postload of ad hominem & cheap shots and a bunch of blowing smoke.
Your post has been reported & I hope very much you will get a big X

yagotme: Note: It is a doctrine in statutory construction that statutes that are in pari materia must be construed together.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is, was and will always be securing individual rights. The 2A does not secure a state's right to have a militia.


Tap dancing along with johnston I see. I see now why you named yourself 'yagotme'.
The bor also limited congressional authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 17, 2019, 01:04 PM

42. only a postload of ad hominem & cheap shots

I did no such thing and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 17, 2019, 07:40 PM

43. you're confused

You quote my response:
"yagotme: Note: It is a doctrine in statutory construction that statutes that are in pari materia must be construed together.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is, was and will always be securing individual rights. The 2A does not secure a state's right to have a militia."
...and attributed it to yagotme. Well, that's just an "oops".

But your response:
"Tap dancing along with johnston I see. I see now why you named yourself 'yagotme'.
The bor also limited congressional authority."


You just don't seem to get it. The BoR isn't just another law. It is, along with parts of the Constitution, founding assumptions and principles upon which the government is based.

From the Bill of Rights:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
That's declarative and restrictive not just restrictive. The people had confidence in their own state elected legislators and officials but viewed national governments with suspicion. So yes initially the restrictions within the BoR were explicitly on the federal government but many are now rightly incorporated as state restrictions as well.

We do not accept restrictions on free speech as okay if a state makes that law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:13 AM

28. Legal Definition of in pari materia

: on the same subject or matter : in a similar case

Note: It is a doctrine in statutory construction that statutes that are in pari materia must be construed together.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/in%20pari%20materia
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is, was and will always be securing individual rights. The 2A does not secure a state's right to have a militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 09:16 AM

24. re: germane

The only thing which would be germane is pointing out how the Miller decision either is or is not supporting further gun regulation or the RKBA.

You opinion, your quote of another's opinion and your opinion of some other person or groups opinion is just a steaming pile of opinion. At least it is in my opinion.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 12:00 PM

30. miller vs unorganized militia

In 1939 the supreme court previously 'last' ruled on the 2ndA in the Miller decision, a unanimous 8-0 ruling (1 recusal since new arrival) and offered this interpretation:

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."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

also in 1939 ruling: 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

This 1939 supreme court ruling on miller was UNANIMOUS. Not one justice felt the above wording to be wrong or misleading about any individual rkba, they clearly called it for the militia interpretation. Not one justice thought 'whoa fellow justices, look how we worded that, future generations are gonna think we're ruling for a militia interp' Nope, all thought it was proper wording.
.. Note, the 9th justice later wrote a book or paper supporting gun control.

Add on amicus brief citing adams by justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment, the contention was summarily rejected as follows:
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights.
http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

Scalia kicked stare decisis (scotus bound by previous interpretations handed down thru the years), in the ass & the right wing put him on a pedestal praising his deceitful greatness.

US Militia code, circa 1903 under teddy roosevelt: 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, .. et cetera:
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; (2% american adults) and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
98% of american adults fit here, at any given time (approx).
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=206865

Note in class 2, the unorganized militia (approx 99% of americans belong or belonged or will belong) does not meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment, in that, by definition, an unorganized militia is NOT well regulated. It could not possibly be what madison intended in 1791..
There is no well regulated all encompassing citizens militia any longer, as intended by madison & founding fathers; thus the 2ndA is obsolete & invalidly applied to an individual right interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 02:58 PM

31. re: "This 1939 supreme court ruling on miller was UNANIMOUS."

"...we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
In the literal wording of the text of the unanimous decision:
- "we cannot say" Echoing the court's acknowledgment that neither evidence nor argument from the defense was offered.
- "right to keep and bear such an instrument" Not encompassing arms in general nor firearms specifically. The decision was in light only regarding the sawed off shogun.

"...an unorganized militia is NOT well regulated."
This is your opinion not the Supreme Court's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:56 AM

34. unorganized militia is a JOKE

I wrote: "...an unorganized militia is NOT well regulated."

dscntnt disagreed, I think: This is your opinion not the Supreme Court's.

It is an opinion based on sound reasoning, and would've been embraced by the 1939 supreme court, most definitively.
One cannot logically contend otherwise, except maybe you & yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 10:16 AM

35. Thank you: "It is an opinion..."

Said by JTO: "...an unorganized militia is NOT well regulated."
JTO now admitting: "It is an opinion..."


Thank you for that admission. Your assertion that it is based on sound reasoning is also an opinion and a somewhat subjective one, if I may say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 12:41 PM

36. The current existing law from Title 10 of the US Code

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
This is the same law establishing the National Guard.
This distinguishes between the Guard (organized militia) and the unorganized militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 1, 2019, 07:02 PM

44. Last but not least re: "...JOKE"

In balance, laws and decisions and opinions on legal matters must devolve from a hierarchy of foundational principles, precedents and other laws. Title 10 § 246 of the US Code was obviously formulated such that the unorganized militia exists and, by name, is the militia or a part thereof. Holding the opinion that members of the unorganized militia are not part of the militia when they are so named by law in 1903. Surely the Justice's decision in Miller could not have missed the relevance of this law written in their lifetimes.

I would further suggest that the text of the Second Amendment and the 1903 law both agree that the RKBA is an individual right. As Chief Justice Marshall said, "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The effect of "the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is rather clear. Trying to suggest that this protection of the RKBA is somehow undone by the prior clause mentioning the militia is to suggest that what the Founders wrote and that what the states ratified was not clear. And that further, in 1903, Congress again recognized the people in general as the unorganized militia with no purpose or effect in mind.

The US Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a part, is important in being the first of its kind but mostly in its survival and the diligence with which it has been studied and emulated around the world.

I take your non-response as accepting all of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 1, 2019, 03:55 PM

32. Two comments.


1. If Miller had shown up for the court case and demonstrated that short-barrelled rifles were useful in trench warfare, they very well might have struck down the NFA for SBS. But no one showed up.

2. An unorganized militia can be well-regulated if folks show up with the weapons they'll need to defend themselves from oppression. The unorganized militia can be defined in many different ways, but the founders intended that regular folks have the firearms they needed to staff a militia if needed. That's why they said the people shall have the right, not the militia.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 2, 2019, 09:46 AM

33. You are dead wrong on just about everything

aiko: 1. If Miller had shown up for the court case and demonstrated that short-barrelled rifles were useful in trench warfare, they very well might have struck down the NFA for SBS. But no one showed up.

Strained & fractured reasoning. The opinions in miller 1939 that the unanimous supreme court ruling made, would've held - they would not have changed course from militia based to individual regardless of how the court 'might have' ruled on whether a disreputable american was able to cross a state line with a sawed off shotgun and argue he had a right to via 2ndA.

aik 2. An unorganized militia can be well-regulated if folks show up with the weapons they'll need to defend themselves from oppression. The unorganized militia can be defined in many different ways, but the founders intended that regular folks have the firearms they needed to staff a militia if needed. That's why they said the people shall have the right, not the militia.

Again more strained & fractured reasoning. The only time the unorganized militia has been activated was during wwII on the west coast in oregon, where about 5,000 americans, mostly wwI vets, showed up to patrol the west coast due to japanese invasion hysteria. They even choked then, as when a japanese IJN submarine surfaced neat Fort Stevens Oregon, the unorg'd commander failed to fire his cannon at it, thinking it was the invasion in progress, and he didn't want to reveal his firing position. Laughable, as is the unorganized militia concept, which is a JOKE.
Governors do not want to activate the unorganized militia out of fear that right wing gunnuts would show up & cause more problems than they would solve.
No, the unorganized militia is NOT the well regulated militia the founding fathers had in mind. Their well regulated militia showed up for drills yearly & had an ORGANIZATION, where they were accountable. It is LUDICROUS to contend the unorg'd militia qualify as a bona fide well regulated militia, that could show up spontaneously in a crisis & act as an efficient militia force.

aik: the founders intended that regular folks have the firearms they needed to staff a militia if needed

The firearms they had available were largely inaccurate single shot flintlock muskets or pistols with buckshot or ball which were susceptible to misfire in humid conditions & especially in rain. There were no semi automatic firearms nor hermetically sealed ammo nor efficient revolvers and rifling grooves & lands were still works in progress, not modern sophistication.
The musket circa 1791 was primarily prized not for its fire but for its bayonet which turned it effectively into an 'assault spear', not an assault shooting rifle. To frontally assault with only buck & ball in the 'chamber' without bayonet would have been a suicidal bonzai charge.

aik: The unorganized militia can be defined in many different ways,

And JOKE is one of them. It never meets, it has no mobilization point, no officers, no call ups even, no pay, no ratings, no leaders, no well defined objectives.
Outside of the pejorative I would like to see how you describe the unorg'd militia 'in many different ways'.

aik: .. That's why they said the people shall have the right, not the militia

You simply corrupt the wording & intent of the 2ndA, as scalia did in heller & mcd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 07:53 PM

37. Problems with some of your comments:

"The firearms they had available were largely inaccurate single shot flintlock muskets or pistols with buckshot or ball which were susceptible to misfire in humid conditions & especially in rain." Which the British also had, the then current "military arm".

"rifling grooves & lands were still works in progress, not modern sophistication." Yes, they were "modern sophistication", as it allowed an individual to make hits much farther downrange than the smooth bore muskets. However, they were more expensive to own (as more modern technology usually is), and slower to load (1 shot to 3-4 of the musket a minute).

"aik: .. That's why they said the people shall have the right, not the militia

You simply corrupt the wording & intent of the 2ndA, as scalia did in heller & mcd." So, what is your definition of "the people" listed in the 2d, as it differs from the definition of that word found in the rest of the 10???

"They even choked then, as when a japanese IJN submarine surfaced neat Fort Stevens Oregon, the unorg'd commander failed to fire his cannon at it, thinking it was the invasion in progress, and he didn't want to reveal his firing position." Seems to be a legitimate plan, thinking a small, lowly sub was seeking out gun positions in prep of a land invasion. Why give away your position attempting to hit a small, submersible target when you might have a crack at assault ships or landing craft, which present a more aggressive and valuable target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread