U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: You have NO IDEA what’s coming: Virginia Dems to unleash martial law attack on 2A counties using roadblocks to confiscate firearms and spark a shooting war
Source:
Government Slaves/Natural News
URL Source: https://governmentslaves.news/2019/ ... arms-and-spark-a-shooting-war/
Published: Dec 19, 2019
Author: Mike Adams
Post Date: 2019-12-21 11:10:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 33570
Comments: 171
After passing extremely restrictive anti-gun legislation in early 2020, Virginia has a plan to deploy roadblocks at both the county and state levels to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens (at gunpoint, of course) as part of a deliberate effort to spark a shooting war with citizens, sources are now telling Natural News. Some might choose to dismiss such claims as speculation, but these sources now say that Virginia has been chosen as the deliberate flashpoint to ignite the civil war that’s being engineered by globalists. Their end game is to unleash a sufficient amount of violence to call for UN occupation of America and the overthrow of President Trump and the republic. Such action will, of course, also result in the attempted nationwide confiscation of all firearms from private citizens, since all gun owners will be labeled “domestic terrorists” if they resist. Such language is already being used by Democrat legislators in the state of Virginia. The Democrat-run impeachment of President Trump is a necessary component for this plan, since the scheme requires Trump supporters to be painted as “enraged domestic terrorists” who are seeking revenge for the impeachment. This is how the media will spin the stories when armed Virginians stand their ground and refuse to have their legal firearms confiscated by police state goons running Fourth Amendment violating roadblocks on Virginia roads. Roadblocks will be set up in two types of locations, sources tell Natural News: 1) On roads entering the state of Virginia from neighboring states that have very high gun ownership, such as Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, and 2) Main roads (highways and interstates) that enter the pro-2A counties which have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries. With over 90 counties now recognizing some sort of pro-2A sanctuary status, virtually the entire State of Virginia will be considered “enemy territory” by the tyrants in Richmond who are trying to pull off this insidious scheme. As the map shows below, every green county has passed a pro-2A resolution of one kind or another. As you can see, nearly the entire state is pro-2A, completely surrounding the Democrat tyrants who run the capitol of Richmond. The purpose of the roadblocks, to repeat, has nothing to do with public safety or enforcing any law. It’s all being set up to spark a violent uprising against the Virginia Democrats and whatever law enforcement goons are willing to go along with their unconstitutional demands to violate the fundamental civil rights of Virginian citizens. Over 90 Virginian counties, cities and municipalities have so far declared themselves to be pro-2A regions, meaning they will not comply with the gun confiscation tyranny of Gov. Northam and his Democrat lackeys. Democrats in Virginia have threatened to activate the National Guard to attack pro-2A “terrorists,” and a recent statement from the Guard unit in Virginia confirms that the Guard has no intention to resist Gov. Northam’s outrageous orders, even if they are illegal or unconstitutional. One county in Virginia — Tazewell — has already activated its own militia in response. As reported by FirearmsNews.com: In addition to passing their Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, the county also passed a Militia Resolution. This resolution formalizes the creation, and maintenance of a defacto civilian militia in the county of Tazewell. And to get a better understanding why the council members passed this resolution, Firearms News reached out to one of its members, Thomas Lester. Mr. Lester is a member of the council, as well as a professor of American History and Political Science. Firearms News: Councilman Lester, what are the reasons behind passing this new resolution, and what does it mean for the people of Tazewell County? Tom Lester: … the purpose of the militia is not just to protect the county from domestic danger, but also protect the county from any sort of tyrannical actions from the Federal government. Our constitution is designed to allow them to use an armed militia as needed. If the (Federal) government takes those arms away, it prevents the county from fulfilling their constitutional duties. The situation is escalating rapidly in Virginia, which is precisely what Democrats and globalists are seeking. As All News Pipeline reports: With many Virginia citizens angry with the threat of tyranny exploding there, ANP was recently forwarded an email written by a very concerned Virginia citizen who warned that Democratic leadership is pushing Virginia there towards another ‘shot heard around the world’ with Virginia absolutely the satanic globalists new testing ground for disarming all of America in a similar fashion should they be successful there. And while we’ll continue to pray for peace in America, it’s long been argued that it’s better to go down fighting than to be a slave to tyranny for the rest of one’s life. And with gun registration seemingly always preceding disarmament and disarmament historically leading to genocide, everybody’s eyes should be on what’s happening now in Virginia. With the mainstream media clearly the enemy of the American people and now President Trump confirming they are ‘partners in crime’ with the ‘deep state’ that has been attempting an illegal coup upon President Trump ever since he got into office, how can outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, Washington Post and all of the others continuously pushing the globalists satanic propaganda be held accountable and responsible for the outright madness they are unleashing upon America? Where is all this really headed? The bottom line goal of the enemies of America is to transform the country into a UN-occupied war zone, where UN troops go door to door, confiscating weapons from the American people. President Trump will be declared an “illegitimate dictator” and accused of war crimes, since Democrats and the media have already proven they can dream up any crime imaginable and accuse the President of that crime, without any basis in fact. And as we know with the Dems, if they can’t rule America, they will seek to destroy it. Causing total chaos is their next best option to resisting Trump’s efforts to drain the swamp, since the Dems know they can’t defeat Trump in an honest election. Expect Virginia to be the ignition point for all this. Even the undercover cops who work there are now warning about what’s coming. Via WesternJournal.com: Virginia’s Democratic politicians appear to be ready to drive the state into a period of massive civil unrest with no regard for citizens’ wishes, but conservatives in the commonwealth will not be stripped of their rights without a fight. In the face of expected wide-reaching bans on so-called assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other arms protected under the 2nd Amendment, Virginians are standing up to Democratic tyranny. A major in the Marine Corps reserves took an opportunity during a Dec. 3 meeting to warn the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County about trouble on the horizon. Ben Joseph Woods spoke about his time in the military, his federal law enforcement career and his fears about where politicians are taking Virginia. “I work plainclothes law enforcement,” Woods said. “I walk around without a uniform, people don’t see my badge, people don’t see my gun, and I can tell you: People are angry.” Woods said that the situation in Virginia is becoming so dangerous that he is close to moving his own wife and unborn child out of the state. The reason is because my fellow law enforcement officers I’ve heard on more than one occasion tell me they would not enforce these bills regardless of whether they believe in them ideologically,” Woods said, “because they believe that there are so many people angry — in gun shops, gun shows, at bars we’ve heard it now — people talking about tarring and feathering politicians in a less-than-joking manner.” As Woods mentioned politicians themselves could very well be in danger because of their decisions, several rebel yells broke out as the crowd cheered him on. Stay informed. Things are about to happen over the next 10 months that you would have never imagined just five years ago. And to all those who mocked our warnings about the coming civil war, you are about to find yourself in one. Sure hope you know how to run an AR platform and build a water filter. Things won’t go well for the unprepared, especially in the cities. And, by the way, Richmond is surrounded by patriots. At what point will the citizens of Virginia decide to arrest and incarcerate all the lawless, treasonous tyrants in Richmond who tried to pull this stunt? I have a feeling there’s about to be a real shortage of rope across Virginia…
The gun confiscation roadblocks are almost sure to start a shooting war
The enemies of America want to turn the entire country into a UN-occupied war zone and declare President Trump to be an “illegitimate dictator”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-93) not displayed.
.
.
.
#94. To: misterwhite (#90)
(Edited)
Had Miller transported a machine gun across state lines, would that have been protected by the second amendment (per the Miller court)? That was not before the Court in Miller and could not have been decided by Miller. The Court does not decide issues not presented. The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held: 1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. 2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178. 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. 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed. Heller at 554 U.S. 623: 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. Miller decided upon only one weapon being transported by Miller in interstate commerce, "a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act." I will not entertain your fantasies about Miller, yet again. Whatever you imagine it says or decided cannot supersede anything in Heller/McDonald.
The Judiciary bill was never directly considered by the House. Instead, members voted 286-136 April 10 to adopt the Volkmer substitute. (Vote 68, p. 22-H) 286-136 was the recorded vote for the Volkmer substitute, NOT the Hughes Amendment. The Hughes Amendment amended the Volkmer substitute text, not the existing main bill text, by a COMMITTEE vote. Then the Committee voted to rise. A COMMITTEE motion to rise is a motion to rise up and report a bill to the House for passage or rejection. MOTION TO RISE https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-115/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-115.pdf HOUSE PRACTICE A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House Charles W. Johnson With one exception in the Committee of the Whole, a motion to amend a bill has precedence over a motion to rise and report it to the House. 4 Hinds §§ 4752-4758. However, the motion to amend yields to the simple motion that the Committee rise. 4 Hinds § 4770. Under clause 2(d) of rule XXI, the motion to rise and report, if offered by the Majority Leader (or designee), takes precedence over an amendment after a general appropriation bill has been completely read for amendment. Manual § 1040. In the 109th Congress, the House adopted a resolution creating a point of order against a motion to rise and report an appropriation bill that exceeded an applicable allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Such a point of order has been carried forward in subsequent Congresses by separate order contained in the opening-day rules package. Manual § 1044b. For precedence as between particular forms of amendment, see § 21, infra. The Hughes text was incorporated into the Volkmer substitute text. The vote on the Volkmer substitute text approved the Volkmer substitute with the Hughes text incorporated, and was a vote of the HOUSE.
I didn't ask the court. I asked you, coward. Answer: They would have thrown out the case since machine guns are suitable for use by a well- regulated militia and protected by the second amendment. Which makes the Heller definition an invented joke.
I stand by my statement that 286-136 was the recorded vote for the Volkmer substitute in lieu of the provisions of the Judiciary Committee measure. The Hughes Amendment banning machine guns was passed by voice vote. Both the Volkmer substitute and the Hughes Amendment were added to HR 4332 and passed in a recorded vote.
No. That was a voice vote on the Hughes Amendment. The vote on the Volkmer substitute was a recorded vote.
I didn't ask the court. I asked you, coward. You asked, I answered. You just don't like the answer. Here is what you asked: The Miller court held that transporting an unregistered shotgun in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes enjoyed no 2A protection. If you imagine that it decided some other issue, that is your personal problem. Heller stated, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessby by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." What Miller noted about machine guns was: "That for the purposes of this Act --" "(a) The term 'firearm' means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition [The Act of April 10, 1936, c. 169, 49 Stat. 1192 added the words], but does not include any rifle which is within the foregoing provisions solely by reason of the length of its barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if its barrel is sixteen inches or more in length." "Sec. 3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm, such tax to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, hereinafter provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm." "Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act: Provided, That, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof." "(c) Every person so transferring a firearm shall set forth in each copy of such order the manufacturer's number or other mark identifying such firearm, and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner. The original thereof, with stamps affixed, shall be returned to the applicant." "(d) No person shall transfer a firearm which has previously been transferred on or after the effective date of this Act, unless such person, in addition to complying with subsection (c), transfers therewith the stamp-affixed order provided for in this section for each such prior transfer, in compliance with such regulations as may be prescribed under this Act for proof of payment of all taxes on such firearms." "Sec. 5. (a) Within sixty days after the effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this section with respect to any firearm acquired after the effective date of, and in conformity with the provisions of, this Act." "Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of section 3 or 4 of this Act." "Sec. 11. It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce." "Sec. 12. The Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect." "Sec. 14. Any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court." "Sec. 16. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby." "Sec. 18. This Act may be cited as the 'National Firearms Act.'" Had the Miller firearm been a machine gun, it would have fallen within the 1934 Act and it would have been seized for the multiple violations of the Act. The Heller court found no conflict with Miller in stating that "M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned...." No joke. I understand you prefer your imaginary bullshit better. Heller supercedes Miller where there is any conflict of holdings. In dicta, Miller opined that "And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." A machine gun in not the type of weapon in common use at this time.
This embed is queued up to start at 8:12. Rep. Charlie Rangel can be seen and heard stating QUOTE CLOSE QUOTE Technically it was the Hughes amendment to the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Hughes Amendment amended the Volkmer Substitute. Your imaginary bullshit does not change the video or the Congressional Record. The Hughes Amendment text was added to the Volkmer Substitute text before the amended Volkmer Substitute text was approved and replaced the text in the main bill. The Hughes amendment to an amendment to an amendment to the Volkmer amendment in the nature of a substitute was approved in committee to become part of the Volkmer Substitute. The Volkmer Substitute, as amended, including the text of the Hughes amendment to the amendment to the amendment was voted on in committee to replace the Hughes-Rodino Bill, the main bill. Then the Bill, now with the text of the Volkmer Substitute (as amended) was approved by the House and signed into law.
No. That was a voice vote on the Hughes Amendment. The vote on the Volkmer substitute was a recorded vote. At 8m:26s comes the vote on the Volkmer Substitute as amended. It was just amended by the Hughes Amendment, and included the text of the Hughes Amendment. The House only took one vote, and that was on the Volker Substitute as amended. The other votes were committee votes. When sitting as a committee of the whole, only 100 members need be present. The committee as a whole cannot vote approval of any legislation. They vote that a Bill is, or is not, reported to the House. Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control By Osha Gray Davidson At 75: "Mr. Chairman," called out Hughes, "I offer an amendment to the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute." At 76: At 77: At precisely 11:30, Rangel announced that time had run out for debating Hughes’s amendment—which, of course, had not been debated at all. Hughes rose to request unanimous consent that debate time be extended another five minutes. Sensenbrenner once again objected and this time Hughes sat down, defeated. A vote on his amendment to ban machine guns was called. What happened next would be a point of contention—and contempt—for years to come. Charles Rangel, still sitting as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, called for a voice vote on Hughes’s amendment. All those in favor of the amendment called out “Aye"; those opposed yelled "No” Rangel declared that Hughes’s ban on machine guns had passed. At 78: Immediately, Rangel turned to the larger question of McClure-Volkmer. The question before the House was, Should the Hughes-Rodino bill be replaced by Volkmer’s bill? A voice vote was called. The ayes and nays were shouted out and Rangel announced that the noes had it. The McClure-Volkmer bill had been defeated. This time Volkmer jumped to his feet and, in a voice that could not be ignored, demanded a recorded vote. He needn’t have worried. Rangel had no intention of ignoring him and risking the undying enmity of a majority of the House for using a trick to defeat the legislation as a whole. The recorded vote was taken. Harold Volkmer inserted his plastic identification card into an electronic console, about the size of a cigar box, which was mounted to the chair back in front of him. He waited for the computer, located across Independence Avenue in the Rayburn House Office Building, to send a "ready" signal: a blue light illuminated on the console. When the light came on, Volkmer didn’t hesitate. He jabbed the yea button, which lit up green, to signal that his vote was locked in. Volkmer looked up at one of the four electronic tally boards mounted above and behind the Speaker’s rostrum. A green yea light blinked on next to his name. As the minutes went by, Volkmer watched with growing satisfaction as more and more green lights flashed on. He figured that the green lights outnumbered the red nay ones by at least two to one. Finally, the vote was announced. The U.S. House of Representatives had voted to toss out the Hughes-Rodino bill and replace it with the McClure-Volkmer bill. The vote was 292 in favor of the move, 130 against it. Harold Volkmer and the National Rifle Association had, at long last, won their battle.
Where did you get "for non-militia purposes"? You're just making shit up. The court didn't even get that far. They couldn't say it was a weapon suitable for use by a militia. They remanded back to the lower court to get that resolved before they would even hear the case.
Sure. That's the way THEY read it. That's why they're wrong. Miller said no such thing. It said the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not suitable for use by a militia. HAD THE MILLER COURT SAID that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessby by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. they would have ruled against Mr. Miller right there and then."
Correct. It violated the Act. But the issue before the USSC was did the Act violate the second amendment, and I say the Miller court would have ruled -- based on their statements in the actual case -- that a machine gun IS protected by the second amendment since a machine gun is suitable for use by a well-regulated militia.
I know what Heller said. And I say they're wrong. If the federal government can ban "M-16 rifles and the like", states will not have the ability form a citizen's militia -- the protection of which the second amendment guaranteed and the whole reason for the second amendment.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 saw to that, didn't it? Offer any gun owner the choice between a single-shot AR-15 and a full-auto AR-15 and they'll take the full-auto every time. So don't give me your "not in common use" bullshit.
Excellent point misterwhite.
I see. And what was the recorded vote of that adoption?
Thank you. Had Mr. Miller been transporting a machine gun instead of a sawed-off shotgun, the U.S. Supreme Court would have ruled the recently passed National Firearms Act of 1934 unconstitutional. Now, since the second amendment only applied to the federal government, states were free to regulate (not ban) machine guns according to their state constitution. They could rule, for example, that machine guns had to be registered and stored at a state armory or private gun range. Or not. The point being -- there were other ways of addressing the problem rather than a federal ban.
As you have apparently never bothered to read Miller, all further stupid comments about it will be ignored. [Miller Syllabus] "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." [Miller Opinion of the Court at 178] "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. " [Lewis v. United States, 445 US 55, 65-6 (1980)]
The logic is ass backwards. That a weapon must bear some relationship to a well-regulated militia in order to enjoy 2A protection, does not infer that ALL weapons that do have some relationship to a well-regulated militia enjoy 2A protection. For example, an AK-47 or an RPG launcher.
See #110.
Who gives a shit and why?
Well, if you recall about 100 posts ago I said the Hughes Amendment was passed by voice vote. All you've done since then was tell me I was wrong. Here you now have a chance to prove it and you slither away. That's why.
The Miller court was ruling on the type of weapon protected by the second amendment. They described the type of weapon as that suitable for use by a militia. They NEVER limited the use of those weapons to "militia purposes". Just the opposite. They expected militia members to bring the same weapons used for "non-militia purposes".
Two words for you: Bull. Shit. ALL weapons that have some relationship to a well-regulated militia enjoy 2A protection. How else to maintain a well-regulated state militia? Now, it is up to the militia of each state how those weapons will be stored. I would imaging most would be stored in the state armory, with personal weapons taken home.
Then why didn't the Miller court issue a ruling based on that? Pretty cut and dried, right? I'll tell you why. Because that's NOT what the Miller court said. The Miller court said the second amendment protects arms suitable for use by a militia and we're not sure that a sawed-off shotgun fits that category.
You said all manner of ridiculous shit. So what? The Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) was passed by the Senate on May 19, 1986. The Bill that passed into law was the Senate bill, S.49. No part of the FOPA passed into law other than as part of Senate Bill 49 which was passed on May 19, 1986. The Hughes Amendment passed in Committee in the House by a voice vote as an amendment to an amendment to an amendment to the Volkmer Amendment which was in the nature of a substitute for the text of the Hughes-Rodino Bill in the House. Who gives a flying shit about a committee vote in the House? By voice vote in Committee, ruled the Ayes had it, the Hughes Amendment became part of the text of the Volkmer Amendment which was in the nature of a substitute for the text of the Hughes-Rodino Bill in the House. The House Hughes-Rodino Bill, H.R.4332, before or after the Hughes amendment to the amendment to the amendment to the Volkmer Amendment in the nature of a substitute, was never adopted as law. In April 10, 1986, the House incorporated HR. 4332 into Senate bill S.49 as an amendment. The Senate Bill, S.49 became the law known as the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. On May 19, 1986, the Senate voted its approval of S.49, as amended, and President Reagan signed it into law the same day. S.49 - Firearms Owners' Protection Act 99th Congress (1985-1986) If it's not a law, stop bitching and just go out and buy yourself a brand new machine gun.
Heller at 626: Heller at 627-28: Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed. The "right to keep and bear arms" existed in the colonies, was brought forth into the states before the union, and was protected by the 2nd Amendment. The right which existed in the colonies came from the English common law. The Framers saw no need to explain to themselves what that right to keep and bear arms was. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals Heller at 593-95: And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833). There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause. Heller at 626-28: We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
They NEVER limited the use of those weapons to "militia purposes". Just the opposite. They expected militia members to bring the same weapons used for "non-militia purposes". misterwhite, victim of dictum. Heller at 625:
Heller at 625:
I'm mailing him a sympathy card as I type this.
Finally. Thank you.
There have never been any federal laws against concealed carry, so there were never any Second Amendment challenges. States have always been free to regulate firearms under their respective state constitutions. "Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern- day bombers and tanks." Which is why the second amendment protects ALL arms -- including bombers and tanks -- suitable for use by a state militia. The second amendment was written to protect state militias from federal infringement. Individual arms for personal use were protected by state constitutions. Who in their right mind would look to the federal government to protect such an important right?
I would hope not. Yes, it's true that United States v. Miller was mentioned in Footnote #8 in Lewis v. United States -- a 1980 case involving a firearm possessed by a felon. Why would the Heller court even mention this case, much less consider it? Probably because if they looked at the Miller case directly -- not footnoted dictum -- they would see that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’.
Finally. Thank you. You're welcome. To avoid your future confusion, the Hughes Amendment passed in Committee as an amendment to an amendment to an amendent to the Volkmer Amendment in the nature of a replacement text to the text of H.R. 4332, the Hughes-Rodino Bill. However, H.R. 4332 was not signed into law. Senate Bill S.49 was signed into law. Just to be clear.
The Framers of the Second Amendment. There were loads of State laws prohibiting concealed carry, as early as an 1820 Kentucky concealed carry law that was the subject of litigation in Bliss v. Commonwealth. 12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822 This was an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state, "to prevent persons in this commonwealth from wearing concealed arms." The act provides, that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars; which may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of like sums, by action of debt, or on presentment of a grand jury. The indictment, in the words of the act, charges Bliss with having worn concealed as a weapon, a sword in a cane. Bliss was found guilty of the charge, and a fine of one hundred dollars assessed by the jury, and judgment was thereon rendered by the court. To reverse that judgment, Bliss appealed to this court. In argument the judgment was assailed by the counsel of Bliss, exclusively on the ground of the act, on which the indictment is founded, being in conflict with the twenty third section of the tenth article of the constitution of this state. That section provides, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." The provision contained in this section, perhaps, is as well calculated to secure to the citizens the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, as any that could have been adopted by the makers of the constitution. If the right be assailed, immaterial through what medium, whether by an act of the legislature or in any other form, it is equally opposed to the comprehensive import of the section. The legislature is no where expressly mentioned in the section; but the language employed is general, without containing any expression restricting its import to any particular department of government; and in the twenty eighth section of the same article of the constitution, it is expressly declared, "that every thing in that article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to the constitution, shall be void." It was not, however, contended by the attorney for the commonwealth, that it would be competent for the legislature, by the enactment of any law, to prevent the citizens from bearing arms either in defence of themselves or the state; but a distinction was taken between a law prohibiting the exercise of the right, and a law merely regulating the manner of exercising that right; and whilst the former was admitted to be incompatible with the constitution, it was insisted, that the latter is not so, and under that distinction, and by assigning the act in question a place in the latter description of laws, its consistency with the constitution was attempted to be maintained. 3. That the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, will not be controverted by the court; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons concealed in the manner described in the act, they may, nevertheless, bear arms in any other admissible form. But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form--it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and [Volume 5, Page 213] such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. We may possibly be told, that though a law of either description, may be enacted consistently with the constitution, it would be incompatible with that instrument to enact laws of both descriptions. But if either, when alone, be consistent with the constitution, which, it may be asked, would be incompatible with that instrument, if both were enacted? The law first enacted would not be; for, as the argument supposes either may be enacted consistent with the constitution, that which is first enacted must, at the time of enactment, be consistent with the constitution; and if then consistent, it cannot become otherwise, by any subsequent act of the legislature. It must, therefore, be the latter act, which the argument infers would be incompatible with the constitution. But suppose the order of enactment were reversed, and instead of being the first, that which was first, had been the last; the argument, to be consistent, should, nevertheless, insist on the last enactment being in conflict with the constitution. So, that the absurd consequence would thence follow, of making the same act of the legislature, either consistent with the constitution, or not so, according as it may precede or follow some other enactment of a different import. Besides, by insisting on the previous act producing any effect on the latter, the argument implies that the previous one operates as a partial restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms, and proceeds on the notion, that by prohibiting the exercise of the residue of right, not affected by the first act, the latter act comes in collision with the constitution. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. 4. Hence, we infer, that the act upon which the indictment against Bliss is founded, is in conflict with the constitution; and if so, the result is obvious—the result is what the constitution has declared it shall be, that the act is void. And if to be incompatible with the constitution makes void the act, we must have been correct, throughout the examination of this case, in treating the question of compatibility, as one proper to be decided by the court. For it is emphatically the duty of the court to decide what the law is; and how is the law to be decided, unless it be known and how can it be known without ascertaining, from a comparison with the constitution, whether there exist such an incompatibility between the acts of the legislature and the constitution, as to make void the acts? A blind enforcement of every act of the legislature, might relieve the court from the trouble and responsibility of deciding on the consistency of the legislative acts with the constitution; but the court would not be thereby released from its obligations to obey the mandates of the constitution, and maintain the paramount authority of that instrument; and those obligations must cease to be acknowledged, or the court become insensible to the impressions of moral sentiment, before the provisions of any act of the legislature, which in the opinion of the court, conflict with the constitution, can be enforced. Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it, whenever in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question. Note well that it is the duty of the judicial branch to decide whether a law is constitutional when such decision become material to the rught in contest. Now, before you get all warm and fuzzy about that law being overturned as repugnant to the Kentucky constitution, the People of the Great State of Kentucky saw fit to amend their constitution and in 1850 the Kentucky constitution Bill of Rights provided: Ain't that an aw shit moment.
Why would the Heller court even mention this case, much less consider it? Probably because if they looked at the Miller case directly -- not footnoted dictum -- they would see that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’. Lewis in 1980 quoted from Miller. Lewis was fully argued before SCOTUS. At 445 U.S. 56: Andrew J. Levander argued the cause pro hac vice for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Heymann, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Jerome M. Feit, and Joel M. Gershowitz It was Miller that was not fully argued before the Supreme Court. A dictum from Miller is no less a dictum because it is described as such by the Supreme Court in a footnote of a subsequent opinion. While the appearance of attorneys and argument for both sides in Lewis is clearly documented, in Miller it is clearly documented that there was "No appearance for appellees." 307 U.S. 175 As we also know, Miller's corpse did not appear for argument or the reading of the Opinion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clayton E. Cramer, For the Defense of Themselves and the State, The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Praeger Publishers, 1994, page 189: The Court did not say that a short-barreled shotgun was unprotected—just that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate such a weapon was "any part of the ordinary military equipment" or that it could "contribute to the common defense." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian L. Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller, NYU Journal of Law and Liberty, Vol 3:48 at 50: At 57: Gutensohn was attorney for Miller. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Heller at 626-28: We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
The Miller court held they 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 could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. And they reversed a lower court decision that said it did. Hardly dictum.
Correct. So what are we to deduce from that statement by the U.S. Supreme Court?
And they reversed a lower court decision that said it did. Hardly dictum. You are full of crap and don't know what you are talking about. Quote your imaginary holding from Miller, do not provide your nonsense variation of the dictum therein and call it a holding. The Opinion of the Court in Miller begins at 307 U.S. 175, and the relevant paragraph is in Miller at page 307 U.S. 178, second paragraph. Try reading Miller and the case cited therein, Aymette. Digest the holding in Aymette which is cited as authority by Miller.
Correct. So what are we to deduce from that statement by the U.S. Supreme Court? We are to deduce that Miller filed a demurrer, filed no brief, and made no appearance in the court, personally or through attorney. A demurrer is an assertion, made without disputing the facts, that the opponent's pleading is insufficient as a matter of law. We are to deduce that the Court, in the absolute and complete absence of any evidence presented which could even tend to show that the weapon had any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, could not make believe there was such evidence. The Court did not find that such evidence did not exist, just that none had been presented. Lacking evidence upon which to form an opinion, the Court went on to relate the matter upon which it could not form an opinion. Because no relevant evidence whatever had been presented, the Court could not say that the weapon was any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. That is what the Court could not say, due to a complete absence of evidence. The Court then cited as authority, Aymette v State, 2 Humphrey's (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Miller court held: 2. (The National Firearms Act) Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 178. AND 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. MEANING that if a weapon has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, the Second Amendment DOES guarantee to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
Ah. So their decision was to be based on whether or not the weapon had any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. I agree and that's the only point I was making. Because Heller ignored that important point.
Comments (135 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Miller involved one (1) unlawful to possess weapon involved in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes, and opined it enjoyed no 2A protection.
Syllabus
Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
#95. To: misterwhite (#91)
The House passed HR 4332 April 10 by a 292-130 vote after substituting the text of Volkmer's bill for the provisions of the Judiciary Committee measure. (Vote 69, p. 22-H)
John V. Sullivan
Thomas J. Wickham, Jr. The Motion to Rise
#96. To: nolu chan (#94)
That was not before the Court in Miller and could not have been decided by Miller. The Court does not decide issues not presented.
#97. To: nolu chan (#95)
#98. To: nolu chan (#92)
Voice vote on Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute on video at 8m:26s
#99. To: misterwhite (#96)
That was not before the Court in Miller and could not have been decided by Miller. The Court does not decide issues not presented.
Had Miller transported a machine gun across state lines, would that have been protected by the second amendment (per the Miller court)?
Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, 48 Stat. 1236-1240, 26 U.S.C. § 1132.
Answer: They would have thrown out the case since machine guns are suitable for use by a well- regulated militia and protected by the second amendment. Which makes the Heller definition an invented joke.
#100. To: misterwhite (#97)
The question is heard. The question is on the adoption of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer Substitute.
#101. To: misterwhite (#98)
Voice vote on Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute on video at 8m:26s
But the smile on Volkmer’s face disappeared as Rangel, instead of recognizing McCollum, gave the nod to William Hughes.
Hughes’s amendment would ban machine guns. These weapons, which fire a stream of bullets as long as the trigger is kept depressed, had been strictly regulated since 1934, but Hughes’s bill would fully outlaw the manufacture and sale of these automatic firearms— although those who already owned machine guns would be allowed to keep them.
Hughes was moving that the committee end its session so that he could then ask the Rules Committee to allow more time for debate. But Hughes’s attempt failed, His motion was soundly defeated, 124 to 298.
Volkmer fumed, but there was nothing he could do.
#102. To: nolu chan (#99)
The Miller court held that transporting an unregistered shotgun in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes enjoyed no 2A protection.
#103. To: nolu chan (#99)
Heller stated, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessby by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
#104. To: nolu chan (#99)
Had the Miller firearm been a machine gun, it would have fallen within the 1934 Act and it would have been seized for the multiple violations of the Act.
#105. To: nolu chan (#99)
The Heller court found no conflict with Miller in stating that "M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned...."
#106. To: nolu chan (#99)
A machine gun in not the type of weapon in common use at this time.
#107. To: misterwhite (#104)
that a machine gun IS protected by the second amendment since a machine gun is suitable for use by a well-regulated militia.
#108. To: nolu chan (#100)
The question is heard. The question is on the adoption of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer Substitute.
#109. To: A K A Stone (#107)
Excellent point misterwhite.
#110. To: misterwhite (#102)
Where did you get "for non-militia purposes"? You're just making shit up.
These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v.Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F. 2d 1288,1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F. 2d 548 (CA41974); Cody v. United States, 460 F. 2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U. S.1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that § 1202 (a) (1),§ 922 (g), and § 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
#111. To: A K A Stone (#107)
that a machine gun IS protected by the second amendment since a machine gun is suitable for use by a well-regulated militia.
Excellent point misterwhite.
#112. To: misterwhite (#103)
#113. To: misterwhite (#108)
I see. And what was the recorded vote of that adoption?
#114. To: nolu chan (#113)
I see. And what was the recorded vote of that adoption?
Who gives a shit and why?
#115. To: nolu chan (#110)
Where did you get "for non-militia purposes"? You're just making shit up.
As you have apparently never bothered to read Miller
#116. To: nolu chan (#111)
That a weapon must bear some relationship to a well-regulated militia in order to enjoy 2A protection, does not infer that ALL weapons that do have some relationship to a well-regulated militia enjoy 2A protection.
#117. To: nolu chan (#99)
Heller stated, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
#118. To: misterwhite (#114)
Well, if you recall about 100 posts ago I said the Hughes Amendment was passed by voice vote. All you've done since then was tell me I was wrong.
#119. To: misterwhite (#116)
ALL weapons that have some relationship to a well-regulated militia enjoy 2A protection.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Arms. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e. g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e. g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
#120. To: misterwhite (#115)
The Miller court was ruling on the type of weapon protected by the second amendment. They described the type of weapon as that suitable for use by a militia.
Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “[t]hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller . . . (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued.
#121. To: misterwhite (#117)
Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “[t]hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller . . . (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued.
#122. To: nolu chan (#120)
misterwhite, victim of dictum.
#123. To: nolu chan (#118)
The Hughes Amendment passed in Committee in the House by a voice vote
#124. To: nolu chan (#119)
(Edited)
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
#125. To: nolu chan (#120)
It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued.
#126. To: misterwhite (#123)
The Hughes Amendment passed in Committee in the House by a voice vote
#127. To: misterwhite (#124)
Individual arms for personal use were protected by state constitutions. Who in their right mind would look to the federal government to protect such an important right?
There have never been any federal laws against concealed carry, so there were never any Second Amendment challenges.
Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Sec. 25 That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the general assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.
#128. To: misterwhite (#125)
Yes, it's true that United States v. Miller was mentioned in Footnote #8 in Lewis v. United States -- a 1980 case involving a firearm possessed by a felon.
Andrew W. Wood argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Neal P. Rutledge.
In some of the most convoluted language the Court has used to justify a position, the majority decided:
"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."
This essay concludes that Miller is coherent, but largely irrelevant to the contemporary debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Miller was a Second Amendment test case, teed up with a nominal defendant by a district judge sympathetic to New Deal gun control measures. But the Supreme Court issued a surprisingly narrow decision. Essentially, it held that the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. While dicta suggest the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service, dicta are not precedent.7 In other words, Miller did not adopt a theory of the Second Amendment guarantee, because it did not need one.
On March 30, 1939, seven justices of the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Miller. Chief Justice Hughes was ill, and the newly appointed Justice Douglas was not confirmed until April 4. Gordon Dean represented the United States and no one represented Miller or Layton. Two days later, Gutensohn finally received four copies of the government’s brief.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e. g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e. g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
#129. To: nolu chan (#128)
It was Miller that was not fully argued before the Supreme Court.
#130. To: nolu chan (#128)
The Court did not say that a short-barreled shotgun was unprotected—just that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate such a weapon was "any part of the ordinary military equipment" or that it could "contribute to the common defense."
#131. To: misterwhite (#129)
(Edited)
The Miller court held they 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 could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
#132. To: misterwhite (#130)
The Court did not say that a short-barreled shotgun was unprotected—just that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate such a weapon was "any part of the ordinary military equipment" or that it could "contribute to the common defense."
#133. To: nolu chan (#131)
Quote your imaginary holding from Miller
#134. To: nolu chan (#132)
We are to deduce that the Court, in the absolute and complete absence of any evidence presented which could even tend to show that the weapon had any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]