You're wrong like you often are.

If you get confused again just let me know and I will set you straight.

Anywhere that you project that Miller interpreted the Constitution differently than Heller, Miller is superseded by Heller. Your attempts to invoke Miller are futile and a waste of time.

Case law is a waste of time. It isn't in the constitution. Read the constitution and understand it for yourself instead of relying on tyrants. If they get it right give them kudos. If they get it wrong don't pretend and do mental gymnastics to make words mean things they never said.

It must stuck to have to change the meaning of words based on what some judge says.

Nope it is an individual right. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Sure, if you ignore the rest of the amendment.

On any particular point, a more recent holding supersedes any prior holding.

Stare decisis be damned!

If there were a conflict, Heller would supercede Miller or any prior precedent you may choose to drag up or misinterpret.

Stare decisis be damned!

Case law is a waste of time. It isn't in the constitution.

The Constitution itself is drafted in the language of the English Common Law and SCOTUS itself has remarked that it is impossible to read and interpret without resort to the English Common Law. Common law itself is the collection of court-made law. If you do not like the common law system, you should experience just one case in the Code System of law, common in Latin Europe.

Case law is the very basis of the Common Law system of law adopted by the Federal government and all thirteen original States. All thirteen states adopted so much of the English Common Law as was not inconsistent with the Federal Consistution. They did so explicitly, either in their State constitution, or in their State statute law. You need not take my word for it. Long ago, I collected the source material for that claim and published it on scribd.

https://www.scribd.com/document/269168881/Common-Law-and-English-Statutes-Adopted-in-American-Founding-Era

Absent stare decisis, we would not have a functioning legal system at all.

Stare decisis be damned!

See #41 and stop being a jerk.

Then you have the balls to say that, well, if there is a conflict with Heller, too bad. Heller is now the new precedent and I must ignore all prior rulings ... because stare decisis.

You want to give this power to the Supreme Court? The power, for example, to define the type of arms protected and have that definition apply nationwide?

Already they've limited the definition to "in common use" for self-defense in the home. Yeah, that's what the second amendment means.

You're so eager to look to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect this right from state laws that you ignore the potential for abuse by some future, liberal-dominated court which now has the power to destroy the real meaning.

Me being a jerk? You lecture me on stare decisis while ignoring Cruikshank, Presser and Miller?

Then you have the balls to say that, well, if there is a conflict with Heller, too bad. Heller is now the new precedent and I must ignore all prior rulings ... because stare decisis.

Yes, that's how it works. When Brown v. Topeka Board of Education struck down Plessey v. Ferguson, neither Plessey nor anything else could be cited as making separate but equal lawful.

Repeating your bullshit endlessly does not polish those turds of thought into pearls of wisdom.

Heller and McDonald superseded all prior interpretations which conflicted with them. Heller states it did not conflict earlier precedents. Heller disagrees with your personal and very fanciful, but wrong, reading of those precedents. Your personal, but wrong, reading of those precedents does not strike down Heller. Deal with it.

Heller does not conflict with earlier precedent. If there were an earlier precedent in conflict, Heller would supersede it.

As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?

As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?

No. Only an existing one at an exorbitant price.

As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?

No. Only an existing one at an exorbitant price.

Has it been that way since before you were born?

Has it been that way since before you were born?

1986 federal legislation called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (specifically the Hughes Amendment) prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens.

Signed into law 19 March 1986. Which commie was president then?

Passed in the Senate 79-15. The yeas were 49 GOP, 30 Dem. The Nays were 2 GOP, 13 Dem. Not voting 2 GOP, 4 Dem.

Passed in the House (amended) by voice vote.

Agreed to in the Senate by voice vote.

Passed in the House (amended) by voice vote.
Agreed to in the Senate by voice vote.

Yep. Usually how controversial and unconstitutional laws are passed. No individual accountability.

I've practiced both American law (common law) and French Civil Law. The systems get to about the same conclusions, but the pathways are different. That they arrive at the same place is testimony to the bedrock of COMMON SENSE that underlies law. Law is not an exercise in abstract philosophy. It is, in the final analysis, a TOOL of governance, where the rubber meets the road between actual citizens in real disputes with each other and/or with the state.

Nutty notions that some subject matter is, somehow, "above the law" just don't work in a world in which there are REAL disputes, with REAL economic and physical consequences. The reason we developed courts at all - whether Common Law or Civil Law - is precisely because if such places of official adjudication DON'T exist and DON'T have orderly rules and procedures that can be predicted and relied upon, people will resort to "self-help", which is a nice way of saying dueling, blood feud, vendetta, and private war. Civil Law, originally Roman Law, fell into disrepair after the fall of Rome, and with it, the Roman Peace evaporated. Feudal Europe was a pretty bloody and terrible place to live. Common Law grew up in places as a bulwark against the craziness of blood feud.

Granted, Christianity (specifically Catholic Canon Law, which was the only game in town in the 1000s (crazies' assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), very heavily inflected the civil and common law courts, by providing an overarching set of lofty (and often unachieved) standards. Still, courts evolved through experience and common sense.

People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries in their yards on short final to JFK airport, and keeping a stock of mustard gas and a nuke in their basement, "just in case" cannot be what the Second Amendment means. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!

People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries ....

People have a "God-given right" to self-defense. Beyond that, it's up to the law.

You accurately portray the legal system as it is, and particularly the system of precedent as it applies under the Common Law.

Oh? The system that says if you don't like precedent you can change it?

Then once you have the new "precedent" you're happy with, that precedent cannot be changed because shut up.

Yep. Usually how controversial and unconstitutional laws are passed. No individual accountability.

Hold 'em accountable. Them and President Ronald Reagan.

Senate Vote #142

1985-07-09

TO PASS S 49

REPUBLICAN - YEA

SD	Yea	Sen. James Abdnor [R, 1981-1986]			
ND	Yea	Sen. Mark Andrews [R, 1981-1986]			
MN	Yea	Sen. Rudolph "Rudy" Boschwitz [R, 1978-1990]	
MS	Yea	Sen. Thad Cochran [R, 1979-2018]		
ME	Yea	Sen. William Cohen [R, 1979-1996]			
NY	Yea	Sen. Alfonse D'Amato [R, 1981-1998]		
MO	Yea	Sen. John Danforth [R, 1976-1994]			
AL	Yea	Sen. Jeremiah Denton Jr. [R, 1981-1986]		
KS	Yea	Sen. Robert Dole [R, 1969-1996]			
NM	Yea	Sen. Pete Domenici [R, 1973-2008]	
MN	Yea	Sen. David Durenberger [R, 1978-1994]		
NC	Yea	Sen. John East [R, 1981-1986]				
WA	Yea	Sen. Daniel Evans [R, 1983-1988]			
UT	Yea	Sen. Edwin "Jake" Garn [R, 1974-1992]		
AZ	Yea	Sen. Barry Goldwater [R, 1969-1986]				
WA	Yea	Sen. Slade Gorton [R, 1981-1986]
TX	Yea	Sen. Phil Gramm [R, 1985-2002]			
IA	Yea	Sen. Charles "Chuck"Grassley [R, 1981-2022]	
UT	Yea	Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, 1977-2018]			
FL	Yea	Sen. Paula Hawkins [R, 1981-1986]			
NV	Yea	Sen. Jacob Hecht [R, 1983-1988]			
PA	Yea	Sen. Henry Heinz III [R, 1977-1991]		
NC	Yea	Sen. Jesse Helms [R, 1973-2002]			
NH	Yea	Sen. Gordon Humphrey [R, 1979-1990]		
KS	Yea	Sen. Nancy Kassebaum [R, 1978-1996]		
WI	Yea	Sen. Robert Kasten Jr. [R, 1981-1992]		
NV	Yea	Sen. Paul Laxalt [R, 1974-1986]			
IN	Yea	Sen. Richard Lugar [R, 1977-2012]			
GA	Yea	Sen. Mack Mattingly [R, 1981-1986]
ID	Yea	Sen. James McClure [R, 1973-1990]	
KY	Yea	Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, 1985-2020]		
AK	Yea	Sen. Frank Murkowski [R, 1981-2002]
OK	Yea	Sen. Don Nickles [R, 1981-2004]
OR	Yea	Sen. Robert Packwood [R, 1969-1995]		
SD	Yea	Sen. Larry Pressler [R, 1979-1996]			
IN	Yea	Sen. James "Dan" Quayle [R, 1981-1989]		
DE	Yea	Sen. William Roth Jr. [R, 1971-2000]
NH	Yea	Sen. Warren Rudman [R, 1980-1992]			
WY	Yea	Sen. Alan Simpson [R, 1979-1996]			
PA	Yea	Sen. Arlen Specter [R, 1981-2010]
VT	Yea	Sen. Robert Stafford [R, 1971-1988]		
AK	Yea	Sen. Ted Stevens [R, 1968-2008]		
ID	Yea	Sen. Steven Symms [R, 1981-1992]			
SC	Yea	Sen. Strom Thurmond [R, 1956-2002]				
VA	Yea	Sen. Paul Trible Jr. [R, 1983-1988]		
VA	Yea	Sen. Paul Trible Jr. [R, 1983-1988]		
WY	Yea	Sen. Malcolm Wallop [R, 1977-1994]			
WY	Yea	Sen. Malcolm Wallop [R, 1977-1994]	
VA	Yea	Sen. John Warner [R, 1979-2008]				
CT	Yea	Sen. Lowell Weicker Jr. [R, 1971-1988]		
CA	Yea	Sen. Pete Wilson [R, 1983-1991]			


DEMOCRAT - YEA

MT	Yea	Sen. Max Baucus [D, 1978-2014]			
DE	Yea	Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. [D, 1973-2009]		
NM	Yea	Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, 1983-2012]			
WV	Yea	Sen. Robert Byrd [D, 1959-2010]			
TX	Yea	Sen. Lloyd Bentsen Jr. [D, 1971-1993]		
OK	Yea	Sen. David Boren [D, 1979-1994]			
AR	Yea	Sen. Dale Bumpers [D, 1975-1998]			
ND	Yea	Sen. Quentin Burdick [D, 1960-1992]		
FL	Yea	Sen. Lawton Chiles Jr. [D, 1971-1988]		
AZ	Yea	Sen. Dennis DeConcini [D, 1977-1994]		
IL	Yea	Sen. Alan Dixon [D, 1981-1992]			
MO	Yea	Sen. Thomas Eagleton [D, 1968-1986]		
NE	Yea	Sen. James Exon [D, 1979-1996]			
KY	Yea	Sen. Wendell Ford [D, 1974-1998]			
OH	Yea	Sen. John Glenn Jr. [D, 1974-1998]			
TN	Yea	Sen. Albert Gore Jr. [D, 1985-1992]		
IA	Yea	Sen. Thomas "Tom" Harkin [D, 1985-2014]		
AL	Yea	Sen. Howell Heflin [D, 1979-1996]			
SC	Yea	Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings [D, 1966-2004]	
LA	Yea	Sen. John Johnston Jr. [D, 1972-1996]		
VT	Yea	Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, 1975-2022]			
MT	Yea	Sen. John Melcher [D, 1977-1988]			
ME	Yea	Sen. George Mitchell [D, 1980-1994]		
GA	Yea	Sen. Samuel Nunn [D, 1972-1996]			
WI	Yea	Sen. William Proxmire [D, 1957-1988]		
AR	Yea	Sen. David Pryor [D, 1979-1996]			
MI	Yea	Sen. Donald Riegle Jr. [D, 1977-1994]		
WV	Yea	Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller IV [D.1985-2014] 
TN	Yea	Sen. James Sasser [D, 1977-1994]			
NE	Yea	Sen. Edward Zorinsky [D, 1976-1987]		


REPUBLICAN - NAY

RI	Nay	Sen. John Chafee [R, 1976-1999]			
MD	Nay	Sen. Charles Mathias Jr. [R, 1969-1986]		

DEMOCRAT - NAY

CT	Nay	Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, 1981-2010]		
HI	Nay	Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, 1963-2012]			
MA	Nay	Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy [D, 1962-2009]	
MA	Nay	Sen. John Kerry [D, 1985-2013]			
NJ	Nay	Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, 1982-2000]		
MI	Nay	Sen. Carl Levin [D, 1979-2014]			
MD	Nay	Sen. Paul Sarbanes [D, 1977-2006]			
NY	Nay	Sen. Daniel Moynihan [D, 1977-2000]		
CA	Nay	Sen. Alan Cranston [D, 1969-1992]			
CO	Nay	Sen. Gary Hart [D, 1975-1986]				
HI	Nay	Sen. Spark Matsunaga [D, 1977-1990]		
OH	Nay	Sen. Howard Metzenbaum [D, 1976-1994]		
RI	Nay	Sen. Claiborne Pell [D, 1961-1996]			


REPUBLICAN - NOT VOTING

CO	NV	Sen. William Armstrong [R, 1979-1990]		
CO	NV	Sen. Mark Hatfield [R, 1967-1996]			

DEMOCRAT - NOT VOTING

NJ	NV	Sen. William "Bill" Bradley [D, 1979-1996]	
LA	NV	Sen. Russell Long [D, 1948-1986]			
IL	NV	Sen. Paul Simon [D, 1985-1996]			
MS	NV	Sen. John Stennis [D, 1947-1988]			

People have a "God-given right" to self-defense. Beyond that, it's up to the law.

Do Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus have the same God-given rights recognized by the U.S. justice system?

Do athiests have God-given rights recognized by the U.S. justice system?

What does the U.S. justice system consult to determine which rights are given by God Hisself? Whose God is considered the Giver?

Does it matter whether the judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or athiest?

Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense?

People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries in their yards on short final to JFK airport, and keeping a stock of mustard gas and a nuke in their basement, "just in case" cannot be what the Second Amendment means. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!

While the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, the right as brought forth from the English common law into the colonies and into the States, has inherent limitations. These limitations are part of the right, they define the right, they do not infringe upon the right.

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 (1765)

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.

It has never meant a right to carry any and all weapons for any purpose. It does not mean that today.

Oh? The system that says if you don't like precedent you can change it?

Then once you have the new "precedent" you're happy with, that precedent cannot be changed because shut up.

Yes, precedent can be changed. Were SCOTUS to issue an opinion that abortion was infanticide, and not a constitutionally protected right, Roe could no longer be cited to the effect that abortion is a constitutional right. The more recent precedent would prevail.

A prevailing precedent can be changed by amending the constitution. Opinions in Scott v. Sandford were not judicially overturned, but were overturned by post-war amendments which changed the law. As an historical note, SCOTUS found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, that the lower court also lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and SCOTUS remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Minor v. Happersett in 1875 held unanimously that women did not have a constitutional right to vote for President. Moreover, neither did anyone else, and they still don't. But the 19th Amendment came along and said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." Women may not be denied the right to vote because of their sex. Where men are allowed to vote, women must be allowed to vote on an equal basis. Minor was correctly decided according to the law then in existence, so the law was changed.

A new abortion precedent could be changed by having the issue revisited by the Court yet again, and changing its interpretation of the Constitution. Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 held that seperate but equal was constitutional. Brown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954 revisited the issue and held that seperate but equal was inherently unequal and was unconstitutional. One cannot go to court and argue Plessy as precedent to overturn Brown.

What cannot be done is to cite a perceived conflict between Miller (1939)and Heller/McDonald (2008/2010) and claim Miller supersedes the more recent interpretation of the Constitution in Heller/McDonald. The precedent set by Heller/McDonald can be overturned by a subsequent, more recent interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the Court issue a holding in misterwhite v United States, (2020) saying that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a newly manufactured machine gun, you would have a new precedent and could buy all the new machine guns you want.

Until the Constitution is amended, or the Supreme Court revisits the issue, you are out of luck.

Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense?

The Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The right to self- defense is part of the right to life.

Now, if the right to self-defense includes the right to own an AK-47, then we would all have the right to own an AK-47. Correct? Even 12-year-olds? Certainly you wouldn't deny the right to self-defense to a 12-year-old!

What cannot be done is to cite a perceived conflict between Miller (1939)and Heller/McDonald (2008/2010) and claim Miller supersedes the more recent interpretation of the Constitution in Heller/McDonald.

I'm not saying Miller supercedes anything. I'm citing the doctrine of precedent -- stare decisis -- which Heller totally ignored.

Miller concluded the only arms protected by the second amendment were militia-type arms. That was ignored by Heller because it didn't fit their in-common-use-for-self-defense-in-the-home made-up interpretation.

The Hughes Amendment was a voice vote. It sounded like the Nays had it, but Rangel said the Ayes had it and refused a recorded vote.

The House vote to approve the Hughes Amendment to the Bill was a Record Vote 286-136.

The House vote to approve the bill as amended, including the Hughes Amendment, was a Record Vote 292-130.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332/titles

Titles: H.R.4332 — 99th Congress (1985-1986)
All Information (Except Text)

Short Titles
Short Titles - House of Representatives

Short Titles as Passed House
Firearms Owners' Protection Act

Short Titles as Reported to House
Federal Firearms Law Reform Act of 1986

Short Titles as Introduced
Federal Firearms Law Reform Act of 1986

Official Titles
Official Titles - House of Representatives

Official Title as Introduced
A bill to amend chapter 44 (relating to firearms) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332/actions

04/10/1986 Passed/agreed to in House: Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).

03/14/1986 Reported to House (Amended) by House Committee on The Judiciary. Report No: 99-495.

03/06/1986 Introduced in House

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332

Shown Here:
Reported to House with amendment(s) (03/14/1986)

(Reported to House from the Committee on the Judiciary with amendment, H. Rept. 99-495)

Federal Firearms Law Reform Act of 1986 - Amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the transfer or possession of silencers.

Permits the interstate sale of rifles and shotguns, provided: (1) the transferee and the transferor meet in person to accomplish the transfer; and (2) the sale, delivery, and receipt comply with the legal conditions of sale in both States.

Makes it unlawful for any person to sell or ship any firearm or ammunition to someone who: (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a felony; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance; (4) has been adjudicated as a mental incompetent or committed to a mental institution; (5) has received a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces; (6) has renounced his U.S. citizenship; or (7) is an illegal alien. Makes it unlawful for such persons to receive, possess, or transfer any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce.

Permits gun sales at certain gun shows.

Prohibits the importation of the barrel of any firearm if the importation of that firearm is prohibited.

Revises the criteria reviewed by the Secretary of the Treasury in approving applications for licenses. Grants the Secretary authority to suspend (rather than just revoke) a license. Allows the Secretary to inspect the inventory and records of a licensee to ensure compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of such Act.

Modifies the penalty provisions for certain licensee violations. Eliminates the recordkeeping requirements for ammunition sales involving less than 1,000 rounds. Codifies existing regulations requiring reports of multiple firearm sales.

Establishes additional mandatory penalties for the use or carrying of firearms or armor-piercing ammunition during certain drug trafficking activities. Imposes additional mandatory penalties for machine gun use in crimes.

Limits to felony violations the Government's authority to seize firearms and ammunition.

Allows individuals who have violated the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act to apply for relief from the legal disabilities imposed by such statutes. Authorizes the Secretary to grant such relief.

Allows the interstate transport of rifles and shotguns by individuals under certain circumstances.

Prohibits the sale, delivery, or transfer of a handgun from a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to an unlicensed individual unless the documentation of the transaction is sent to local law enforcement officers and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D

04/10/1986 Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).
Action By: House of Representatives

04/10/1986 H.Amdt.776 Amendment Passed in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 233 - 184 (Record Vote No: 72).
Action By: House of Representatives

04/10/1986 H.Amdt.770 Amendment Passed (Amended) in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 286 - 136 (Record Vote No: 74).
Action By: House of Representatives

04/09/1986 H.Amdt.775 Amendment Failed of Passage in Committee of Whole by Recorded Vote: 177 - 242 (Record Vote No: 71).
Action By: House of Representatives

04/09/1986 H.Amdt.773 Amendment Failed of Passage in Committee of Whole by Recorded Vote: 176 - 248 (Record Vote No: 70).
Action By: House of Representatives

- - - - - - - - - -

House Record Vote 74 was to amend the Senate bill.

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/99th-congress/house-amendment/770

Description: H.Amdt. 770 — 99th Congress (1985-1986)
All Information (Except Text)

A substitute amendment to ease the interstate sale of both rifles and handguns. It eliminates the requirement that gun dealers notify police of handgun purchases and preempts state and local laws to ease interstate travel with handguns as well as rifles for any legal purpose. It also eliminates the need for many gun sellers to obtain a license and keep records of their gun sales.

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/99th-congress/house-amendment/770/actions

04/10/1986 Amendment Passed (Amended) in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 286 - 136 (Record Vote No: 74).

- - - - - - - - - -

House Record vote 75 was to adopt the bill, as amended, including the Hughes Amendment.

Record vote 75 (S.B. 49), adopted H.R. 4332, an amendment to the final bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D

04/10/1986 Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).

Action By: House of Representatives

- - - - - - - - - -

An additional wrinkle is that when the Supreme Court rules as a basis of existing law, including constitutional law, Congress might go ahead and pass new law that purports to change the law, or provides a guideline definition of terms that changes the constitutional meaning.

The Supreme Court can, of course, find that the Congressional attempt is unavailing, because of the Constitution, or the Supreme Court can find that the Congressional effort, the new law, is constitutional, as written, and accept the legislature's redefinition of the bounds of the law.

The same things is theoretically true with regulations as well, though I can't think of any examples.

Oh? The system that says if you don't like precedent you can change it?

Correct. The Supreme Court makes precedent by deciding cases. And the Supreme Court can overrule itself and previous precedent and establish NEW precedent, which stands until it overrules itself again, or until a constitutional amendment is ratified that overrules a Supreme Court position, or a statute is past that has the effect of overruling a Supreme Court precedent, and the Supreme Court acquiesces to the new statute. Precedent is always changeable by the authority that issued it. There is not one single aspect of US law or the Constitution that cannot be changed, amended, altered, with time, following the proper procedures. Supreme Court precedent is changed by later Supreme Court rulings. That's how the system works. NOTHING in the world of law is absolute, fixed and permanent. Law is made by man, and man can always change every single aspect of it, without any exceptions whatsoever, if enough men want to change it, and are able to sufficiently organize themselves to do so. That change might not be legal within the existing system. A SYSTEM may have sacrosanct laws that cannot be changed, in which case men determined to change it have to overthrow the system itself, in a revolution. And they do, from time to time. But the American Constitution contains within itself the means by which it can be amended, and there is nothing in it off limits to amendment. Some things are harder to amend than others, but NOTHING is off limits.

While the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, the right as brought forth from the English common law into the colonies and into the States, has inherent limitations. These limitations are part of the right, they define the right, they do not infringe upon the right.

Exactly. Well put.

What does the U.S. justice system consult to determine which rights are given by God Hisself? Whose God is considered the Giver?

Does it matter whether the judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or athiest?

Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense?

I would say, in truth, that the US justice system does not fully incorporate the Common Law of England as far as the right to keep and bear arms and self-defense goes.

Rather, I'd say that a common law of America, which has come to differ substantially from old England, has developed over time, and that beyond that, American judges are all politicians, and live within a political and cultural climate that inflects their own beliefs, and sense of limitation, when it comes to the matter of guns and gun rights.

In England, the restriction of guns came easily, because an iron-clad top- down legalism rules the road there. In America, it's not so easy because the people are neither as obedient nor as malleable as the English.

And the judges come from the people and share those animal spirits. So while I would not dispute that American judges do indeed cite to the chains of laws going back, and conduct chains of reason that purport to simply be logical and inevitable extensions of the common law of jolly old England, in truth, their programming and prejudices make the result a sui generis common law of America, which is very distinctive on certain things, particularly matters of black-white race relations and guns.

And the Supreme Court can overrule itself and previous precedent and establish NEW precedent

Thereby making the concept of legal precedent a joke.

For over 200 years, those rights were secured by state constitutions.

The Hughes Amendment to H.R.4332 passed on a controversial voice vote. The entire H.R.4332, including the Hughes Amendment, passed by a recorded vote.

Your Congressional Record must read differently than the one that I just linked and quoted. Link and quote yours.

The Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The right to self- defense is part of the right to life.

The DoI is not, and never has been, part of U.S. law. It was a political statement made before there was a United States.

Now, if the right to self-defense includes the right to own an AK-47, then we would all have the right to own an AK-47. Correct?

It doesn't. We don't.

If there were no laws, you would be correct. There are laws, and they do not support your dreams.

I'm not saying Miller supercedes anything. I'm citing the doctrine of precedent -- stare decisis -- which Heller totally ignored.

Miller concluded the only arms protected by the second amendment were militia-type arms. That was ignored by Heller because it didn't fit their in-common-use-for-self-defense-in-the-home made-up interpretation.

You are full of crap, so there's that.

Heller did a thorough review of existing precedents. It found none inconsistent with its own ruling. It did not ignore precedent as you claim.

Heller demolishes your wrongheaded misreading of those precedents.

Notably, Heller finds that,

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

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

Your wrongheaded reading of Miller affects nothing.

Published on Jul 19, 2011

This is recently discovered footage from the early morning of April 10th, 1986. The committee chair, Charlie Rangel, allows the language known as The Hughes Amendment, into an amendment for the Firearm Owners Protection Act. This amendment banned the possession of automatic firearms by civilians except those already registered with BATFE. An unrecorded voice vote is used by Rangel to insert the amendment into the bill.

Explanation: Around 3:16 the clerk attempts to read the amendment which bans the manufacture of new machine guns while Hughes asks that the reading of the amendment suspended. A Republican objects to the fact that the amendment will not be read and forces the reading to go forward. This goes back and forth for a while. The time for consideration runs out, and Hughes asks for additional time for consideration around 5:46.

At 6:03 Rangel holds a voice vote (after the Republicans demand a recorded vote) in which he declares that enough ayes were heard, even though the nays are clearly more numerous. Rangel attempts to move forward, but enough Republican's speak up to demand a recorded vote on the previous voice vote and Rangel is unable to ignore them. When the recorded vote is held, it shows that the nays were indeed the majority and time is forced to expire on discussion of the Hughes amendment.

At 8:17 a voice vote is held in which Rangel declares it passed. At 8:41 Rangel ignores a call for recorded vote (while smirking) and moves forward without taking a recorded vote which would have shown that the amendment failed.

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

OK. And what weapons would those be? According to Miller.

Thereby making the concept of legal precedent a joke.

No. That IS the concept of legal precedent. All lower courts must obey the precedent set by the high court. The high court cannot permanently bind itself with an opinion any more than a Congress can permanently bind the country with a law. Later courts and later Congresses can always revisit and change the opinion, or the law. There is no permanent unalterable law. Absolutely everything can always be amended.

Explanation: Around 3:16 the clerk attempts to read the amendment which bans the manufacture of new machine guns while Hughes asks that the reading of the amendment suspended. A Republican objects to the fact that the amendment will not be read and forces the reading to go forward. This goes back and forth for a while. The time for consideration runs out, and Hughes asks for additional time for consideration around 5:46.

At 6:03 Rangel holds a voice vote (after the Republicans demand a recorded vote) in which he declares that enough ayes were heard, even though the nays are clearly more numerous. Rangel attempts to move forward, but enough Republican's speak up to demand a recorded vote on the previous voice vote and Rangel is unable to ignore them. When the recorded vote is held, it shows that the nays were indeed the majority and time is forced to expire on discussion of the Hughes amendment.

At 8:17 a voice vote is held in which Rangel declares it passed. At 8:41 Rangel ignores a call for recorded vote (while smirking) and moves forward without taking a recorded vote which would have shown that the amendment failed.

As I said, look at the Congressional Record. Approval of the Hughes Amendment and the main bill, as amended, was by Record Vote.

Listen to the very start. "The COMMITTEE is not in order."

"The question is on the motion for the COMMITTEE to rise. All in favor indicate by saying "Aye".

The Chairman ordered that a recorded vote be taken on the motion for the COMMITTEE to rise, by electronic device.

Recorded vote: Aye 124, Nay 297, NV 14 (vid)

The committee did not rise.

There was then a vote on adoption of the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer substitute. The Chairman announced that the Ayes had it.

Then there was a voice vote on adopting the Volker substitute, as amended.

The Chairman announced that the Noes had it.

A recorded vote was ordered by electronic device. Yea 286, Nay 136, NV 18.

Congressional Record:

04/10/1986 H.Amdt.770 Amendment Passed (Amended) in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 286 - 136 (Record Vote No: 74).
Action By: House of Representatives

At this point, the Volkmer substitute, as amended by the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer substitute, was agreed to.

There followed consideration of the Judiciary Committee amendment, as amended, to the main bill, and a voice vote followed. The Chair announced the Ayes had it. "According to the rule, the committee rises."

That was COMMITTEE proceedings.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speaker Tip O'Neill took over for House proceedings

House consideration of House Bill 4332.

Mr. Greaves (ph) "moves to recommit the bill 4332 to the committee on the judiciary."

Speaker O'Neill announced the Noes had it.

"The question comes on the passage of the bill."

The Speaker announced that the Ayes had it.

On motion, a recorded vote was ordered. Yea 292, Nay 130 NV 13. (on vid)

Congresional Record:

04/10/1986 Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).
Action By: House of Representatives

OK. And what weapons would those be? According to Miller.

Those typically lawfully possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Those weapons in common use at the time.

Heller at 624-25:

“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment.

Heller at 627-28:

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.

Those typically lawfully possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Those weapons in common use at the time.

You cited Heller.

In your post #70, you said, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

I asked what "certain types of weapons" Miller stood for. Not Heller.

In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

Not true.

Weapons used for hunting and self-defense were rifles. Expensive, but accurate. Weapons used by the militia were smooth-bore muskets fired in volley. Inaccurate, but cheap.

The Militia Act of 1792 required militiamen to bring a musket with them, not their home rifle.

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

But Miller actually said, "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by members of a militia".

Heller made things up out of thin air.

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.

Yep. And if that has changed it's up to the people to change the second amendment. Not Congress and certainly not the courts.

Since about half the states still have a State Militia (in addition to the National Guard), I doubt that will happen.

That was COMMITTEE proceedings.

That was COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proceedings.

I'll get back with text of the video. That may help.

The Militia Act of 1792 required militiamen to bring a musket with them, not their home rifle.

The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed, in its entirety, in 1795, and then it did not refer to muskets any more.

But Miller actually said, "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by members of a militia".

Heller made things up out of thin air.

Heller agrees that the Second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by members of a militia. That particular Miller assertion does not say what the 2nd does protect.

You cited Heller.

In your post #70, you said, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

I asked what "certain types of weapons" Miller stood for. Not Heller.

Heller is currently the definitive legal interpretation of what Miller says.

Miller involved one (1) unlawful to possess weapon involved in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes, and opined it enjoyed no 2A protection.

And if that has changed it's up to the people to change the second amendment.

A constitutional amendment is not needed to change the conception of what the militia does.

That was COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proceedings.

I know. The committee could not conduct House passage of the bill. The amended main bill, with the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute, was passed by the House with a recorded vote of the House.

The Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute was passed by the Committee of the Whole. Meeting as a committee may follow a different rule.