quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

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!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You can't have it both ways. If the shotgun has a military application, under the Miller ruling, it should have been protected.
Otherwise you are saying that either[:]

A ) "militias" are required to be under-armed as they can only have weapons which are both military applicable and street legal.
B ) The court didn't know what they were talking about.

You should note that the defense didn't present it's case in the Miller decision as the defendant had disappeared.

As for the "self defense" amendment I have already explained why it is a really bad idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Just a note BamaD, I modified your quote only help it appear more uniformed. I added the colon after 'either' in the second sentence. The sentences and your words remain untouched.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You can't have it both ways. If the shotgun has a military application, under the Miller ruling, it should have been protected.
Otherwise you are saying that either[:]

A ) "militias" are required to be under-armed as they can only have weapons which are both military applicable and street legal.
B ) The court didn't know what they were talking about.

You should note that the defense didn't present it's case in the Miller decision as the defendant had disappeared.

As for the "self defense" amendment I have already explained why it is a really bad idea.

A shotgun, like a rifle or musket can be used in the military or civilian use. The military application of arms is generally well defined by each of the branches and as a whole at the 'Joint Chief' level. Civilian use of any of these arms (in the United States) is based on laws created by society. The shotgun in the Miller can was NOT used in a military application, so that argument is rendered irrelevant. The Miller case is whether the shotgun could be of use in a civilian application. The problem is the person(s) arguing it should be protected under the 2nd failed to show a better argument that its use was in direct usage to "A well regulated militia...". The shotgun's use, whether sawed off or not, was not part of "A well regulated militia....", it could not be protected under the 2nd. It could find protection under the 10th amendment, but that would be up to the individual states to determine.

A well regulated militia, would be one that could have access to many forms of arms. But how, when, where, and why those arms would need to be well defined and strictly enforced. They could have military hardware, but it would be reasonable said hardware had an even stricter usage attached to it.

The court knew what it was talking about in this case. The 2nd amendment was not thought before the mid-1970's as "an individuals right to any sort of arm, without question, rules, or penalty". It was thought of as part of "a well regulated militia...". In that forty some odd years, politicians and the gun industry have had everything to gain from brainwashing Americans into believing the 2nd is for individual use without reasonable limit. Say a lie enough times, it becomes truth, right?

I do not think I've seen your reply of the 'self defense' amendment. Where might I find it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My reply to the self defense amendment

A In order to agree to push it we would need to concede that the 2nd is not an individual right.
B It is very difficult to get an amendment passed.
C The amendment would most likely fail as the anti gun forces could count on most
of New England, CA, CO, and IL to oppose it.
D If it fell short by even one state this would be used as proof that there is no individual right to
own arms as this would be conceded by the very existence of the amendment.
F Supporting an amendment would, for pro 2nd people be tantamount to surrender.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My reply to the self defense amendment

A In order to agree to push it we would need to concede that the 2nd is not an individual right.
B It is very difficult to get an amendment passed.
C The amendment would most likely fail as the anti gun forces could count on most
of New England, CA, CO, and IL to oppose it.
D If it fell short by even one state this would be used as proof that there is no individual right to
own arms as this would be conceded by the very existence of the amendment.
F Supporting an amendment would, for pro 2nd people be tantamount to surrender.

A ) I think we both suspect many gun owners and gun nuts would find this hard (particularly the gun nuts) to admit the 2nd is not an individual right. But that is the purpose of this amendment, to establish an individual right.
B ) Getting amendments pass, SHOULD BE, very difficult. That way we appreciate those freedoms more, right? We do not want the amendments to become 'watered down bullshit', but mean something important to us as Americans.
C ) The amendments fails if one side dictates the terms. That is why a compromise (or many such compromises) would need to take place. I'll give a basic idea of what I'm thinking below. Hopefully you'll understand the 'middle' ground approach. That neither side gains an awesome (and unweighing) power over others.
D ) I would suggest not getting ahead of ourselves, and worrying about 'what ifs'. The 1st and 2nd amendment went through many revisions before the final wording was decided upon. I'm sure there were a few that did not agree with either or both amendments. That's why the majority voted into both amendments rather then letting the minority dictate things.
E ) Surrender of what? Stupid crap that has clogged our courts in endless bullshit? Hundreds (if not thousands) of laws in the states that are bewildering to keep up with? What is 'ok' in one state, is not in another? If your getting the idea that things need overhauled at the national level, you have the right idea.

A self defense amendment. One in which the individual may have three arms that are protected. However, these arms need to be identifiable and distinctive from other arms. meaning if you had two AR-15s, one could tell the difference in some specific manner (i.e. number identification). That both AR-15 while physically duplicates of each other, one of them would be protected under the law. Meaning if Congress ban all AR-15s, one the one that is protected would not be ban. And that there would need to be time frame of registration and change of that registration on anyone particular arm. Six Months? Three years? Again, This is sort of 'thinking on reasonable concepts'. Gun Nuts and Gun Controllers are not going to like this. Yet, Gun Owners and Concern Citizens are more likely to compromise as they are the majority population in the country.

I choose three arms, on the spur of the moment; but then, we do have three branches of government....

I'm not saying this whole process is cake. I am not a legal nor constitutional scholar. This is at best, a concept. It would go through a hundred revisions by people more skilled and knowledgeable than myself. And it'll be voted upon by Congress and then the states themselves. I'm not gong to lie and say this is all going to work perfectly either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My reply to the self defense amendment

A In order to agree to push it we would need to concede that the 2nd is not an individual right.
B It is very difficult to get an amendment passed.
C The amendment would most likely fail as the anti gun forces could count on most
of New England, CA, CO, and IL to oppose it.
D If it fell short by even one state this would be used as proof that there is no individual right to
own arms as this would be conceded by the very existence of the amendment.
F Supporting an amendment would, for pro 2nd people be tantamount to surrender.

A ) I think we both suspect many gun owners and gun nuts would find this hard (particularly the gun nuts) to admit the 2nd is not an individual right. But that is the purpose of this amendment, to establish an individual right.
B ) Getting amendments pass, SHOULD BE, very difficult. That way we appreciate those freedoms more, right? We do not want the amendments to become 'watered down bullshit', but mean something important to us as Americans.
C ) The amendments fails if one side dictates the terms. That is why a compromise (or many such compromises) would need to take place. I'll give a basic idea of what I'm thinking below. Hopefully you'll understand the 'middle' ground approach. That neither side gains an awesome (and unweighing) power over others.
D ) I would suggest not getting ahead of ourselves, and worrying about 'what ifs'. The 1st and 2nd amendment went through many revisions before the final wording was decided upon. I'm sure there were a few that did not agree with either or both amendments. That's why the majority voted into both amendments rather then letting the minority dictate things.
E ) Surrender of what? Stupid crap that has clogged our courts in endless bullshit? Hundreds (if not thousands) of laws in the states that are bewildering to keep up with? What is 'ok' in one state, is not in another? If your getting the idea that things need overhauled at the national level, you have the right idea.

A self defense amendment. One in which the individual may have three arms that are protected. However, these arms need to be identifiable and distinctive from other arms. meaning if you had two AR-15s, one could tell the difference in some specific manner (i.e. number identification). That both AR-15 while physically duplicates of each other, one of them would be protected under the law. Meaning if Congress ban all AR-15s, one the one that is protected would not be ban. And that there would need to be time frame of registration and change of that registration on anyone particular arm. Six Months? Three years? Again, This is sort of 'thinking on reasonable concepts'. Gun Nuts and Gun Controllers are not going to like this. Yet, Gun Owners and Concern Citizens are more likely to compromise as they are the majority population in the country.

I choose three arms, on the spur of the moment; but then, we do have three branches of government....

I'm not saying this whole process is cake. I am not a legal nor constitutional scholar. This is at best, a concept. It would go through a hundred revisions by people more skilled and knowledgeable than myself. And it'll be voted upon by Congress and then the states themselves. I'm not gong to lie and say this is all going to work perfectly either.