joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: truckinslave
quote:
Insights, anyone?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
First, the case was... strangely... decided. My grandfather used a sawed-off Model 12 shotgun in the trenches in France in 1916. Was the barrel a full 18"? Maybe. Sawed-offs were very popular in the Phillipines in WWII and prized in Viet Nam. Were all those barrels longer than 18"? Absolutely not. Would sawed-off shotguns be a suitable weapon for inter-urban fighting? Abso-fucking-lutely. The case does little more than expose the abyssmal ignorance of SCOTUS regarding weapons.
You do understand that France, much of the world in WWII, and Vietnam, was NOT part of the United States of America? So how those arms were used would likewise not fall under the laws and enforcement of said laws of the United States of America. The Millar case is explaining the Court's viewpoint as it relates to a matter....WITHIN...the United States of America. Could Americans used a 'sawed off' shotgun in a theater of war as part of the US Military? That would be up to the US Military to decide, not the US Supreme Court.
The Miller case points out that the specifics of the weapon give no bearing to whether it would be protected under the 2nd. Its HOW the weapon was used, that would determine if it was. The specifics of that case, do not place the weapon being used in conjunction with "a well regulated militia...", so it would not be protected under the 2nd. Its like, for example, someone hunting a deer with a rifle. Is that rifle protected under the 2nd? The answer would still be 'no', since its not being used in conjunction with "a well regulated militia' duties. Could the hunter use the rifle to hunt deer? That would be a matter that falls under the 10th amendment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Let me give you but one more example of that ignorance. Having decided in Miller that the justification for federal regulation of a weapon is its reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, how can they possibly use Miller to regulate, say, fully automatic high capacity "assault rifles", the very mainstay of any militia, army, or other fighting force?
Are the weapons in individual hands and not part of "a well regulated militia' duties? No, they can not. "A Well Regulated Militia..." could be an example of local police departments. In Massachusetts, most of the towns have squad cards with at least one full automatic assault rifle, one shotgun, and one or two side arms (depending on there being one or two officers in said squad car). They can only use the shotgun and assault rifle under specific set of circumstances. Which is why they do not carry them in while handling a case of 'domestic dispute' at a residence or 'petty theft' at the mall. They do use them with 'armed robbery'. Likewise, when such arms are used, the matter is always reviewed to see if the property regulations and rules were followed or not.
Citizens, with these weapons and not the fear of such reviews, would tend to over use the firearms in circumstances were such arms would elevated hostile/violent conditions, when the individual's view was to lessen them (i.e. threat of use, rather than actual use).
Even further, that law enforcement is trained and tested to keep cool even in times of high stress and aexiety. That we humans get angry is a normal condition when dealing with stressful or anxiety producing events. The difference is that people without this training/testing tend to go from 'angry' to 'blind rage'. 'Blind rage' in medical terms is one the front half of the human brain 'shuts down' and forces the back half to do double duty. The problem is the front half deals with logic, reasoning, and thinking, while the back half controls emotions. Do you want a common citizen, without this indepth training/testing to have a full automatic assault rifle and going into blind rage?
quote:
ORIGINAL: truckinslave
And that's what I like about the piece by Stevens. He and Dershowitz are the only liberal anti-gunners I know who advocate the direct, honest approach of rewriting/nullifying the 2nd Amendment rather than the dishonest approach of killing it through the death of a thousand cuts. (Although it should be noted that the good professor does not pervert/misunderstand the history/meaning of the 2nd as the Justice does).
Actually there are many people that have stated the 2nd should be rewritten to be more clear in America. It was never designed to be used as an individual's ability to acquire and use any sort of arm, without question or law in any circumstance. The concept of 'self defense' did not have the same meaning in the late 18th century as it does in 2014. In order to have 'federal protects' I believe another amendment would have to be devised. One that specifically is for self defense. And that it will be heavy contested before the vote takes place. An any one group/individual that thinks they are getting even 56% of what they want (let alone 100%) is a fool!
|
RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread