Full Version: Gun Registration: Constitutional?
Here is something to consider:
Pro-gun activists argue that everyone could or can be part of a militia, and thus are entitled to bear arms. In theory, should the need arise, all are part of a citizens' militia.
Yet the US government has already decided that simply owning a gun and fighting for a cause does NOT make you part of a militia, you need to have some evidence of uniform, training or specific organisation. The people currently residing in Guantanimo Bay were armed and fighting, but the US decided they did not meet the criteria of militia forxces under the geneva convention.
So, it seems either Pro-Gun activists are wrong in their interpretation of the militia portion of the secons amendment, or the US government was wrong in its treratment of these militia forces as not being prisoners of war...
Pro-gun activists argue that everyone could or can be part of a militia, and thus are entitled to bear arms. In theory, should the need arise, all are part of a citizens' militia.
Yet the US government has already decided that simply owning a gun and fighting for a cause does NOT make you part of a militia, you need to have some evidence of uniform, training or specific organisation. The people currently residing in Guantanimo Bay were armed and fighting, but the US decided they did not meet the criteria of militia forxces under the geneva convention.
So, it seems either Pro-Gun activists are wrong in their interpretation of the militia portion of the secons amendment, or the US government was wrong in its treratment of these militia forces as not being prisoners of war...
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Feb 16 2004, 10:02 AM)
Here is something to consider:
Pro-gun activists argue that everyone could or can be part of a militia, and thus are entitled to bear arms. In theory, should the need arise, all are part of a citizens' militia.
Yet the US government has already decided that simply owning a gun and fighting for a cause does NOT make you part of a militia, you need to have some evidence of uniform, training or specific organisation. The people currently residing in Guantanimo Bay were armed and fighting, but the US decided they did not meet the criteria of militia forxces under the geneva convention.
So, it seems either Pro-Gun activists are wrong in their interpretation of the militia portion of the secons
Pro-gun activists argue that everyone could or can be part of a militia, and thus are entitled to bear arms. In theory, should the need arise, all are part of a citizens' militia.
Yet the US government has already decided that simply owning a gun and fighting for a cause does NOT make you part of a militia, you need to have some evidence of uniform, training or specific organisation. The people currently residing in Guantanimo Bay were armed and fighting, but the US decided they did not meet the criteria of militia forxces under the geneva convention.
So, it seems either Pro-Gun activists are wrong in their interpretation of the militia portion of the secons
The militia is defined by Congress... NOT the Second Amendment.
QUOTE
amendment, or the US government was wrong in its treratment of these militia forces as not being prisoners of war...
The people held as combatants from the recent wars currently residing in Guantanimo Bay ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE USA. Therefore, the Constitution does NOT apply. They ARE covered by the Geneva Convention, though.
Personally I see no reason to fear registering a firearm when I buy it at a gun dealer. I have quite a few firearms some aquired before my state required filling out the forms when buying a handgun and some after. If I ever need to use one of them to defend myself or family it will make little difference if the gun is registered or not. I will be within my legal rights to use deadly force in self defense, and the bullet will care little if it was fired from one of my registered handguns or not. Where I do have a problem is when gun control folks begin to yelp about having to register a handgun that I am purchasing from and individual, either at a gun show or simply from a friend. It is unresonable, time consuming, infering a cost in time and money on me that will in no way serve any more useful purpose than registering the firearm that I bought from the dealer. Criminals do not use legally aquired guns to commit crimes! The absolute most regestering a firearm can accomplish is to lead law enforement to the last law abiding citizen that owned it before it was stolen, yes by a criminal. So by definition gun regestration is a moot point. I dont mind regestering my guns as long as it does not cause undue inconvience or infringe on my right to freely and quickly aquire a gun if I so desire, because I am not a criminal planning a crime. A criminal could care less wheather registration is the law of the land because he wont obey it anyway. The only thing the criminal may gain is the advantage over the law abiding citizen who he victimises using his illeagally aquired gun while that same citizen is sitting thru some ridiculous waiting period in order to arm himself for defense. As far as the confiscating of firearms goes, it is a simple matter to tell anyone carrying out such a farce that I no longer have the weapons since they were stolen from me, and to make sure they are securely stored away from prying fingers and eyes. In conclusion I dont see what the whole bru hah hah is about. Registration serves no practical purpose either in crime prevention, crime solving, or in some future confiscation bid of a government foolish enough to set itself up to be overthrown by attempting such a foolish thing. This nation was born of rebellion and revolution. Rest assured there is a quiet majority of people in this country that will rise up before they will be yoked like some third world populations have been in history. So, rest easy, opponents of registration, it is a paper tiger with no teeth, your rights in this country will endure all the fruitless attempts to take them away with foolish bureucratic plans 
QUOTE(archer1958 @ Feb 18 2004, 01:48 AM)
As far as the confiscating of firearms goes, it is a simple matter to tell anyone carrying out such a farce that I no longer have the weapons since they were stolen from me, and to make sure they are securely stored away from prying fingers and eyes.
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Suppose you would ever actually have to use that registered but-then-outlawed weapon in self-defense? To a prison you would be going.
Mrs Pigpen, it is quite that simple. As for using my outlawed guns in self defense I doubt that would be an issue at that point as the government would be much to busy trying to put down the revolution that would undoubtly occur if it tried to do such a stupid thing. In any case to use a worn out phrase, better tried by 12 than carried by six.
As for the original argument, the constitution is as clear as spring water on the issue. We have a right to life and liberty. Obiviously having those rights includes the right to defend oneself against anyone trying to take them by any means possible. That pretty much settles the issue even with out the other clear statement that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In plainer language shall not be limited or interfered with. The laws on the books are unconstitutional already. And yes if I felt the need to own a howitzer to protect my rights to life and liberty then constitutionally I am with in my rights to have them. With those rights also come responsibilities to my country and fellow citizens of this country to defend the country if called upon and to uphold the laws of the land as long as they are in accordance with the constitution.
The whole intent of "the right to keep and bear arms" was to enable the people to protect themselves against and overthrow if nessacary a government that might become tyranical just as the King of England had become. The will of the people that this nation's government is supposedly based on is only as strong as the peoples ability to enforce that will on its leaders. That is the clear intent of what our founding fathers set to paper all those years ago.
As for the original argument, the constitution is as clear as spring water on the issue. We have a right to life and liberty. Obiviously having those rights includes the right to defend oneself against anyone trying to take them by any means possible. That pretty much settles the issue even with out the other clear statement that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In plainer language shall not be limited or interfered with. The laws on the books are unconstitutional already. And yes if I felt the need to own a howitzer to protect my rights to life and liberty then constitutionally I am with in my rights to have them. With those rights also come responsibilities to my country and fellow citizens of this country to defend the country if called upon and to uphold the laws of the land as long as they are in accordance with the constitution.
The whole intent of "the right to keep and bear arms" was to enable the people to protect themselves against and overthrow if nessacary a government that might become tyranical just as the King of England had become. The will of the people that this nation's government is supposedly based on is only as strong as the peoples ability to enforce that will on its leaders. That is the clear intent of what our founding fathers set to paper all those years ago.
i dont think owning of arms should be legal at all. the government allows registered weapons for self defense, but more harm is done by guns than good. civilians should not always carry a gun, and as most attacks are unannounced, it would not be used, so it is not very useful for defence. criminals acquire guns and they will, but prohibiting ownership of guns in civilians could reduce suicides, murders in family disputes and other rash uses of it. a gun is hardly used unplanned, and a planned use is attack/murder.
Sorry Maya but that doesnt hold water. There are literally hundreds of cases each year nation wide where concealed carry laws are enacted of regular citizens defending themsleves from violent crime and also in a few cases saving the bacon of law enforement officers. Most attacks are not unannouced as you say, but can be picked up on before hand by an alert citizen. Also in states that have concealed carry laws the mere fact that criminals cant be sure who is carrying a gun on them and who isnt has been proven to protect even those who dont carry a gun by reducing violent attacks across the board. As for suicides and etc. nothing you mentioned cant be accomlished just a easily with a baseball bat or knife or by jumping out of a window etc. Shall we abolish windows? Baseball bats? Butcher knives? You do make one good point. Criminals will get guns. To prevent law abiding citizens from having them as well is to deny their right to self defense.
Yes, national registration would be an infringement, just as registration of printing presses would be, or Bibles or Korans, and the federal government is therefore specifically prohibited from doing it, as well as lacking any granted authority to do it. As has been noted, the commonly understood meaning of the phrase "well regulated" has changed considerably over time; when the Bill of Rights was written it meant something akin to "efficient" but now implies tangled up in bureaucratic red tape, nor is that section of any real significance, since as previously noted it is a nominative absolute (<-- link). I will agree however with US v. Miller that what is meant to be protected is weapons reasonably related to militia service, which as the Founders did, I take to mean the "general militia"; that would include mainly those weapons used by light infantry, i.e. M16's and AK-47's but not quad .50 AA mounts or anti-tank missiles.
Nor are constitutional rights granted by the Constitution; any such rights are merely codifications of Natural Law. As Jefferson put it "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights", which for a free people as traditionally understooed in these United States, must include the right to self defense as a corollary to the right to life, liberty and property (the original wording). Of course times do change, and sometimes the Constitution needs to be updated; that's what the amendment process is for, but it not what the courts are for. Their job is to read and apply the plain meaning of the Constitution, not to reinterpret it.
Everything else I might have to say on the subject has already been said better by others: Hugo, Bikerdad, Mrs. P, et al.
Nor are constitutional rights granted by the Constitution; any such rights are merely codifications of Natural Law. As Jefferson put it "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights", which for a free people as traditionally understooed in these United States, must include the right to self defense as a corollary to the right to life, liberty and property (the original wording). Of course times do change, and sometimes the Constitution needs to be updated; that's what the amendment process is for, but it not what the courts are for. Their job is to read and apply the plain meaning of the Constitution, not to reinterpret it.
Everything else I might have to say on the subject has already been said better by others: Hugo, Bikerdad, Mrs. P, et al.
QUOTE
The whole intent of "the right to keep and bear arms" was to enable the people to protect themselves against and overthrow if nessacary a government that might become tyranical just as the King of England had become
That is patently false. If that were true, we would be entitled to rocket launchers, jet aircraft, and WMD without the Feds getting in our way. Obviously, that is not the case and is simply preposterous.
Furthermore, every Supreme Court ruling that supports the COLLECTIVE right to bear arms invalidates that even further. And without doing an in-depth analysis, I would bet money that Supreme Court justices, on both sides of the aisle, know a little more about the law and the Constitution than any of us do.
This whole "mob rule" nonsense is finding the means to justify an end that doesn't exist. Everyone is quick to point out what was said by the Federalists, but nothing is EVER said about the anti-Federalists. John Adams, an anti-Federalist, was deeply opposed to "mob rule" and the premise that we had some inherent right to violently overthrow our government. Hence, the second amendment includes a preamble for that specific purpose.
The Federalists papers were NOT the basis for the Constitution. They were created to lobby states to ratify the Constitution. Just because Jefferson said and believed something, that doesn't mean his beliefs were more important than John Adams or any other high profile leaders who opposed his views.
If you have a problem with our government, you vote our leaders out of office. We don't shoot them.
Actually Rocker, it is patently true. Just because a court supreme or otherwise with justices who are bent on one agenda or another rules one way or another doesnt change the constitiution or our God given right to life and liberty.
Now the weapons of today are more sophisticated than back then but yes we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own any weapon we choose including those you list. Obvioulsy no individual would be able to maintain or store some of these weapons or operate them without special training but that has nothing to do with their right to own them. The fact that the Feds get in the way has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, that the Feds feel they have the right to get in the way is just another reason to be watchful.
You are right that we vote officals out of office. But if and when we get leaders who dont want to hold elections or wont recognize them, what then? It has happend in other countries so dont say it cant happen here. The Federal government has already over stepped its authority many times over. Now Im not saying that our government will become much more tyranical than it already is but if it should, what do you suggest? Demand an election? Stamp our feet? Hold our breath? Wave a copy of the Constitution in the air and yell "NO FAIR!!!!"
We as a people of a free country are guaranteed the right to protect ourselves from such an event and to have the means to do so at hand. The people would have to enforce upon our government the restraints placed on it by our founding fathers. Hopefully with the aid of our own military but in spite of it if need be.
All of this aside, we have the right to life and therefore the right to defend it if it is threatened. That right in itself which I hope no one would argue about, includes the right to having the means to defend it, even without second amendment guarantees
Now the weapons of today are more sophisticated than back then but yes we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own any weapon we choose including those you list. Obvioulsy no individual would be able to maintain or store some of these weapons or operate them without special training but that has nothing to do with their right to own them. The fact that the Feds get in the way has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, that the Feds feel they have the right to get in the way is just another reason to be watchful.
You are right that we vote officals out of office. But if and when we get leaders who dont want to hold elections or wont recognize them, what then? It has happend in other countries so dont say it cant happen here. The Federal government has already over stepped its authority many times over. Now Im not saying that our government will become much more tyranical than it already is but if it should, what do you suggest? Demand an election? Stamp our feet? Hold our breath? Wave a copy of the Constitution in the air and yell "NO FAIR!!!!"
We as a people of a free country are guaranteed the right to protect ourselves from such an event and to have the means to do so at hand. The people would have to enforce upon our government the restraints placed on it by our founding fathers. Hopefully with the aid of our own military but in spite of it if need be.
All of this aside, we have the right to life and therefore the right to defend it if it is threatened. That right in itself which I hope no one would argue about, includes the right to having the means to defend it, even without second amendment guarantees
QUOTE(archer1958 @ Feb 24 2004, 06:33 PM)
Actually Rocker, it is patently true. Just because a court supreme or otherwise with justices who are bent on one agenda or another rules one way or another doesnt change the constitiution or our God given right to life and liberty.
Now the weapons of today are more sophisticated than back then but yes we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own any weapon we choose including those you list. Obvioulsy no individual would be able to maintain or store some of these weapons or operate them without special training but that has nothing to do with their right to own them. The fact that the Feds get in the way has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, that the Feds feel they have the right to get in the way is just another reason to be watchful.
You are right that we vote officals out of office. But if and when we get leaders who dont want to hold elections or wont recognize them, what then? It has happend in other countries so dont say it cant happen here. The Federal government has already over stepped its authority many times over. Now Im not saying that our government will become much more tyranical than it already is but if it should, what do you suggest? Demand an election? Stamp our feet? Hold our breath? Wave a copy of the Constitution in the air and yell "NO FAIR!!!!"
We as a people of a free country are guaranteed the right to protect ourselves from such an event and to have the means to do so at hand. The people would have to enforce upon our government the restraints placed on it by our founding fathers. Hopefully with the aid of our own military but in spite of it if need be.
All of this aside, we have the right to life and therefore the right to defend it if it is threatened. That right in itself which I hope no one would argue about, includes the right to having the means to defend it, even without second amendment guarantees
Now the weapons of today are more sophisticated than back then but yes we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own any weapon we choose including those you list. Obvioulsy no individual would be able to maintain or store some of these weapons or operate them without special training but that has nothing to do with their right to own them. The fact that the Feds get in the way has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, that the Feds feel they have the right to get in the way is just another reason to be watchful.
You are right that we vote officals out of office. But if and when we get leaders who dont want to hold elections or wont recognize them, what then? It has happend in other countries so dont say it cant happen here. The Federal government has already over stepped its authority many times over. Now Im not saying that our government will become much more tyranical than it already is but if it should, what do you suggest? Demand an election? Stamp our feet? Hold our breath? Wave a copy of the Constitution in the air and yell "NO FAIR!!!!"
We as a people of a free country are guaranteed the right to protect ourselves from such an event and to have the means to do so at hand. The people would have to enforce upon our government the restraints placed on it by our founding fathers. Hopefully with the aid of our own military but in spite of it if need be.
All of this aside, we have the right to life and therefore the right to defend it if it is threatened. That right in itself which I hope no one would argue about, includes the right to having the means to defend it, even without second amendment guarantees
So, we have a constitutional right to own WMD? And we've had some type of legal conspiracy for 225 years that has made all judicial benches, both liberal and conservative, go against your interpretation of the second amendment?
Belittling remarks removed.
No Rocker there has been no conspiracy. As another stated earlier it is not within the judicuary power to interpret the constitution but to apply what it states plainly. We have an amendment process to change the constitution. That is not up to the Supreme or any other court. There were no WMD back then or for years to come, so if you want them banned then we need to amend the constitution to state that. I am simply pointing out that as written and in effect right now the constitution does in plain language guarantee the peoples right to keep and bear arms. Any arms. Without infringement by the Feds, state authorities, or anyone else. As I stated the federal and state governments have already over reached their constitutional authority in many areas including regulating guns.
The point is really this Rocker. I and the great majority of American citizens will own keep and bear arms regardless of what the government says. It is our right to have the means to protect our lives and liberty and have the means to do so. We simply do not want to be made criminals arbitarily by ridculous ineffective legislation that is unconstitutional on its face for exerciseing that right.
The point is really this Rocker. I and the great majority of American citizens will own keep and bear arms regardless of what the government says. It is our right to have the means to protect our lives and liberty and have the means to do so. We simply do not want to be made criminals arbitarily by ridculous ineffective legislation that is unconstitutional on its face for exerciseing that right.
An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Six-shooter: The original point and click interface.
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
911 – government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
We don't enforce unconstitutional laws; we REPEAL them.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
The American Revolution would never have happened with "gun control."
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Six-shooter: The original point and click interface.
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
911 – government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
We don't enforce unconstitutional laws; we REPEAL them.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
The American Revolution would never have happened with "gun control."
QUOTE(christopher @ Feb 27 2004, 03:09 AM)
An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Six-shooter: The original point and click interface.
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
911 – government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
We don't enforce unconstitutional laws; we REPEAL them.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
The American Revolution would never have happened with "gun control."
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Six-shooter: The original point and click interface.
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
911 – government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
We don't enforce unconstitutional laws; we REPEAL them.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
The American Revolution would never have happened with "gun control."
What part of "To ensure a well regulated militia" don't you understand?
I really dont understand the great rush to weaken the rights of the people in this country. The second amendment is not confuseing in its wording. It only becomes confuseing when someone begins to try to place meanings to words that obviously dont fit.
The wording is, not to ensure a well regulated militia.
The correct wording is""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Taken in context with the rest of the constitution should anyone care to read it is written, the state is empowered to call forth a milita to repel invasion or put down insurrection. The founding fathers feared a standing army, but did provide that a military force which had been periodically trained by the state, could be called up from an armed citizenry.
The argument that the inclusion of milita in the second amendment somehow limits the right of the people to keep and bear arms falls apart quickly when examined in context with the constitiution. The entire concept of the constitution was to limit the power of government, giving it only the powers deemed nessacary to govern the nation and no more. And to ensure that the people would be able to enforce those limits should the officals in power attempt to overstep their authority.
"A well regulated Militia being nessacary to the security of a free state" is an affirmation that to remain free a nation must be able to bring up a fighting force capable of repelling invasion from its citizenry quickly. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The people, the base from which the militia shall be called up, means just what it says "the people" made up of each individual person in the United States. "to keep" is obvious on its face. If you keep something you possess it, in your control. "to bear" is to carry with you as in bear a load, a burden or a grudge. It is with with you. "shall not be infringed" is very clearly worded unless you want to begin the Clintonesque form of grammer where you must question what the meaning of is is. "shall not be infringed". Shall not be interfered with or encroached upon.
Our founding fathers were very wise and shrewd. They could forsee based on their history and life experience that even the most free of people could be brought under tyranny by a government unless they had the means to control that government by force if nessacary. The very birth of this nation was based on that premise. The fact that some government officals political groups feel the need to weaken the rights of our people and are able to cajole small groups to support their efforts does nothing but to affirm the need for the right that is stated very clearly in the second amendment. Our government may become corrupt, it may betray us to a forgien power for its own gain. It may someday, if things continue as they are, attempt to reduce us to subjects. But thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers we are guranteed the right to resist and to have the means to resist.
The wording is, not to ensure a well regulated militia.
The correct wording is""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Taken in context with the rest of the constitution should anyone care to read it is written, the state is empowered to call forth a milita to repel invasion or put down insurrection. The founding fathers feared a standing army, but did provide that a military force which had been periodically trained by the state, could be called up from an armed citizenry.
The argument that the inclusion of milita in the second amendment somehow limits the right of the people to keep and bear arms falls apart quickly when examined in context with the constitiution. The entire concept of the constitution was to limit the power of government, giving it only the powers deemed nessacary to govern the nation and no more. And to ensure that the people would be able to enforce those limits should the officals in power attempt to overstep their authority.
"A well regulated Militia being nessacary to the security of a free state" is an affirmation that to remain free a nation must be able to bring up a fighting force capable of repelling invasion from its citizenry quickly. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The people, the base from which the militia shall be called up, means just what it says "the people" made up of each individual person in the United States. "to keep" is obvious on its face. If you keep something you possess it, in your control. "to bear" is to carry with you as in bear a load, a burden or a grudge. It is with with you. "shall not be infringed" is very clearly worded unless you want to begin the Clintonesque form of grammer where you must question what the meaning of is is. "shall not be infringed". Shall not be interfered with or encroached upon.
Our founding fathers were very wise and shrewd. They could forsee based on their history and life experience that even the most free of people could be brought under tyranny by a government unless they had the means to control that government by force if nessacary. The very birth of this nation was based on that premise. The fact that some government officals political groups feel the need to weaken the rights of our people and are able to cajole small groups to support their efforts does nothing but to affirm the need for the right that is stated very clearly in the second amendment. Our government may become corrupt, it may betray us to a forgien power for its own gain. It may someday, if things continue as they are, attempt to reduce us to subjects. But thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers we are guranteed the right to resist and to have the means to resist.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Feb 27 2004, 08:45 AM)
What part of "To ensure a well regulated militia" don't you understand?
As has been said on several of these topics, the grammatical construction, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a nominative absolute. The term 'absolute' is used because the entire expression is an independent construction. It forms part of the sentence, but it is not connected to the rest of the sentence grammatically. ‘Militia’ is in the nominative case and 'being necessary' is the perfect participle. Remember, it is used 'absolutely' or independently and, in this case, relates a (but not the only) reason for the main clause. It could have been restructured as an 'although' or 'because' construct as in 'Although a well regulated Militia is necessary...' or 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary...'. These two meanings are in direct competition with each other. Which meaning was intended? Because it is in the form of a nominative absolute, BOTH MEANINGS APPLY.
Here is a compilation of some of the connections I have researched on this subject:
Common Mistakes Concerning the Militia, Miller and Gun Control:
1) Assuming the militia of Art. 1 Sect 8 Cl 15&16 in the Constitution is the militia referred to in the Second Amendment:
There is nothing to support this view except both use the word "militia". A1S8C15&16 refers to the militia, while the Second refers to a militia. There is a marked difference in these articles. "The" indicates a specific militia, whereas "a" indicates any or one of many.
2) Assuming the National Guard is the militia of A1S8C15&16:
This is a classic mistake. The N.G. is part of the militia of A1S8C15&16, but it is not all of it. In fact, it is not even the majority of it. Under A1S8, Congress has the authority to call up the militia. Title 10 US Code 311 defines the militia of A1S8. There are two distinct parts of that federal militia, the N.G. and all able bodied males age 17-45 who are not members of the N.G. Please note that as part of the reserve component of the military,
the N.G. may be called up by the President. In Perpich vs. DoD, the United States Supreme Court specifically stated that a) the N.G. ceases to be the militia when called up due to the dual oath of enlistment they take (meaning once called up, they are no longer part of the militia of A1S8 or 10 USC 311), and b) individual states may form there own state militias as provided for by law; militias which can only be called up by Congress, remain militias once called up, and cannot be deployed outside of the US.
3) Combining assumptions 1 and 2, assuming that the N.G. is therefore the militia mentioned in the Second:
Since this assumption is based on two faulty previous assumptions, it is an untenable position.
4) Assuming that the militia is the only entity with a right to arms:
This is based on incorrect readings of the Miller decision. The Supreme Court has never stated this. A couple of Circuit Courts have done so, but several have stated the exact opposite. In the more than 36 cases where the Supreme Court has referred to the Second Amendment, directly or indirectly, 29 of them support the individual rights interpretation.
5) Assuming that the purpose of the Second was to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias:
This is based on some backwards logic. Nothing in the Second Amendment or the debates surrounding the Constitution or Bill of Rights would indicate this. In fact, they indicate the exact opposite. The purpose of the Second was to prevent the federal government from disarming the people; hence the subject of the
Second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". One of the most important reasons to not infringe this right was so that the people would have the ability to form militias as needed; hence the use of the absolute phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" (a book on grammar will explain the absolute phrase construct). The right to arms is not dependent upon the militia; the militia is dependent upon the right to arms--something the gun controllers tend to get mixed up.
6) Assuming that the term "well-regulated" from the Second and the term "organized" from 10 USC 311 mean the same thing:
The truth is the term "organized" was used specifically to avoid people assuming the N.G. was the militia of the Second. Yet some people still manage to get them confused.
For one thing, "organized" is only one possible interpretation of "regulated". For another, A1S8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to organize the militia, not regulate it. This power is only a federal power, whereas the Second clearly refers to any militia and does not specify who organized it. And again, 10 USC 311 is a federal document and only organizes a part of the militia at the federal level. There is nothing to indicate this is the "regulating" of the Second. When the Congress has the power to "regulate", it is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says Congress can "regulate" commerce with foreign nations, it can "regulate" the value of money, it can "regulate" the military, but "regulating" is not a power it has over the militia of A1S8.
7) Assuming that the 1939 Miller ruling settled the debate on gun control:
The truth is that the Miller decision was more of a non-decision. Miller had been killed prior to the ruling in a mysterious shoot-out and Layton skipped out and didn't show. Neither did the defense lawyers. Hence the statement from the ruling, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 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." No evidence was presented by the litigants to defend their case. It would have easy to present evidence such as how effective short barreled shotguns were in WWI when soldiers had to jump into enemy trenches with "trench guns" brought from home loaded with double 'ought buck shot.
But the more troubling part of the decision to gun-control itself can be found in the following passage from the ruling: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' 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."
Truly it appears that the State was counting on the citizen to arrive with his own arms.
Actually, the "classic mistake" being made here, is attempting to parse words into meaning what you want them to mean.
The Supreme Court - the law of the land - has rejected all this militia definition nonsense. And that's exactly what it is. It's internet nonsense.
Every federal and Supreme Court decision since 1939 (with the exception of US v Emerson) has rejected the individual right argument and they don't rely on internet Bloggers to figure out what everything means.
US v Miller is the defacto standard and precedent used today that rejects every collective right argument. There is no individual right to bear arms and judges much smarter and knowlegdable than you and I have ruled on this. The Emerson case ruled otherwise, but the Supremes punted on this - and they are a conservative bench. And why? Because the Supreme Court had already ruled on it!
Just for the record, several cases since Emerson have followed the Miller ruling. The Emerson ruling was truly a renegade activist judge.
You can try to revise and twist all the cases and analysis, but it doesn't change the FACT that the second amendment is a collective right. US v Miller was not a ruling FOR indivdual rights (as some would suggest) or a non-decision. That's revisionism hoping nobody educated on the subject would notice.
From US v Miller
Gun registration is constitutional because you do NOT have an individual right to bear arms unless your state's constitution says otherwise. You can wish it all you want, and show cause why you think it should be that way, but that's not what the law says or how it's ruled.
In 70 years, not one person has been able to go to the Supreme Court and tell them how thery got it wrong back in '39. Not even the NRA with the most powerful lobbyists in the world.
The Supreme Court - the law of the land - has rejected all this militia definition nonsense. And that's exactly what it is. It's internet nonsense.
Every federal and Supreme Court decision since 1939 (with the exception of US v Emerson) has rejected the individual right argument and they don't rely on internet Bloggers to figure out what everything means.
US v Miller is the defacto standard and precedent used today that rejects every collective right argument. There is no individual right to bear arms and judges much smarter and knowlegdable than you and I have ruled on this. The Emerson case ruled otherwise, but the Supremes punted on this - and they are a conservative bench. And why? Because the Supreme Court had already ruled on it!
Just for the record, several cases since Emerson have followed the Miller ruling. The Emerson ruling was truly a renegade activist judge.
You can try to revise and twist all the cases and analysis, but it doesn't change the FACT that the second amendment is a collective right. US v Miller was not a ruling FOR indivdual rights (as some would suggest) or a non-decision. That's revisionism hoping nobody educated on the subject would notice.
From US v Miller
QUOTE
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158
Gun registration is constitutional because you do NOT have an individual right to bear arms unless your state's constitution says otherwise. You can wish it all you want, and show cause why you think it should be that way, but that's not what the law says or how it's ruled.
In 70 years, not one person has been able to go to the Supreme Court and tell them how thery got it wrong back in '39. Not even the NRA with the most powerful lobbyists in the world.
Oh Rocker my friend, we meet again lol. It is so interesting to debate things with you, keep those opinions coming lol.
The only reason that your supreme court agrument is flawed is that the supreme court does not have the power to change the constitution nor is the constitution a document that is open to interpretation. It is written clearly giving no power to the judical branch to modify it. That is done by the amendment process which the judical has nothing to do with.
It does not matter in the least what the supreme court has ruled in the past or will in the future. Nor does it matter how someone interprets the meaning of milita. The words are very clear in that the right of the people, not the militia shall not be infringed. You can banty about supreme court rulings and milita meanings until you are blue in the face and it doenst change a thing.
As I have stated before and no one has seemed to want to comment to refute it, I think we will all agree that we at least are guaranteed the right to life and liberty. Rocker even you I hope will agree with that.
Well with the right to life alone it follows that you have the right to self defense in order to preserve your life. Common sense tells us not to bring a knife to a gun fight. You have the right to protect yourself agaisnt the use of lethal force by employing lethal force. That includes but is not limited to guns. Even without the second amendment guarantee, the right to keep and bear the means to defend yourself is still plainly present.
The second amendment is not subject to court rulings. No place in the consititution is that power given to the judicuary branch. The arguments that bring court rulings of any kind into the debate are a moot point with no relavence to the issue at all.
If the American people want to do away with the right to keep and bear arms then it will take a constitutional amendment to do that. However there is no way an amendment of that type could be ratified. State after state is moving away from trying to prohibit the second amendment and embracing concealed carry laws as they realize that to do so lowers violent crime rates across the board and that the incidence of law abiding citizens commiting crimes or violent acts with their legally carried firearms is nonexistent. The "Wild West" fantasy of the gun control advocates proved to be just that, a fantasy.
Sorry but the second amendment is here to stay. Meaning just what it says in plain language, not open to be changed by court officals, or by interpretation by same.
The only reason that your supreme court agrument is flawed is that the supreme court does not have the power to change the constitution nor is the constitution a document that is open to interpretation. It is written clearly giving no power to the judical branch to modify it. That is done by the amendment process which the judical has nothing to do with.
It does not matter in the least what the supreme court has ruled in the past or will in the future. Nor does it matter how someone interprets the meaning of milita. The words are very clear in that the right of the people, not the militia shall not be infringed. You can banty about supreme court rulings and milita meanings until you are blue in the face and it doenst change a thing.
As I have stated before and no one has seemed to want to comment to refute it, I think we will all agree that we at least are guaranteed the right to life and liberty. Rocker even you I hope will agree with that.
Well with the right to life alone it follows that you have the right to self defense in order to preserve your life. Common sense tells us not to bring a knife to a gun fight. You have the right to protect yourself agaisnt the use of lethal force by employing lethal force. That includes but is not limited to guns. Even without the second amendment guarantee, the right to keep and bear the means to defend yourself is still plainly present.
The second amendment is not subject to court rulings. No place in the consititution is that power given to the judicuary branch. The arguments that bring court rulings of any kind into the debate are a moot point with no relavence to the issue at all.
If the American people want to do away with the right to keep and bear arms then it will take a constitutional amendment to do that. However there is no way an amendment of that type could be ratified. State after state is moving away from trying to prohibit the second amendment and embracing concealed carry laws as they realize that to do so lowers violent crime rates across the board and that the incidence of law abiding citizens commiting crimes or violent acts with their legally carried firearms is nonexistent. The "Wild West" fantasy of the gun control advocates proved to be just that, a fantasy.
Sorry but the second amendment is here to stay. Meaning just what it says in plain language, not open to be changed by court officals, or by interpretation by same.
the Supreme Court case of Haynes vs. The United States in 1968 ruled that criminals did not have to register their weapons because it would be an act of self-incrimination.
If we are unable to register the people who are already criminals...whats the point?
If we are unable to register the people who are already criminals...whats the point?
[quote=DaytonRocker,Feb 27 2004, 09:06 PM]US v Miller is the defacto standard and precedent used today that rejects every collective right argument. There is no individual right to bear arms and judges much smarter and knowlegdable than you and I have ruled on this. The Emerson case ruled otherwise, but the Supremes punted on this - and they are a conservative bench. And why? Because the Supreme Court had already ruled on it!
Just for the record, several cases since Emerson have followed the Miller ruling. The Emerson ruling was truly a renegade activist judge.
You can try to revise and twist all the cases and analysis, but it doesn't change the FACT that the second amendment is a collective right. US v Miller was not a ruling FOR indivdual rights (as some would suggest) or a non-decision. That's revisionism hoping nobody educated on the subject would notice.
From US v Miller
[quote]In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158[/quote]
Gun registration is constitutional because you do NOT have an individual right to bear arms unless your state's constitution says otherwise. You can wish it all you want, and show cause why you think it should be that way, but that's not what the law says or how it's ruled.[/quote]
Well now. An interesting opinion... But opinion it is. Let's see what we can extract from Miller...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. [307 U.S. 174, 175] Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
No appearance for appellees. [/quote]
Miller was dead... so his lawyer didn't show to argue the case.
Layton skipped bail... so his lawyer didn't show to argue the case, either.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] [/quote]
The 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934 is a tax law, NOT a gun control law.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
The cause is here by direct appeal. [/quote]
The lower court supported the 'Second Amendment' argument.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Considering Sonzinsky v. United States, 1937, 300 U.S. 506, 513 , 57 S. Ct. 554, and what was ruled in sundry causes aris- [307 U.S. 174, 178] ing under the Harrison Narcotic Act2-United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916, 241 U.S. 394 , 36 S.Ct. 658, Ann.Cas.1917D, 854; United States v. Doremus, 1919, 249 U.S. 86, 94 , 39 S.Ct. 214; Linder v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 5 , 45 S.Ct. 446, 39 A.L.R. 229; Alston v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 289 , 47 S.Ct. 634; Nigro v. United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 332 , 48 S.Ct. 388-the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.[/quote]
Based on these cases, usurpation of police powers is discharged and unusable by the defendants.
Now we get into the meat of the Miller case...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]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.[/quote]
No defence... No evidence. Defendants nor their lawyers attended.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.[/quote]
The court... "We haven't been presented with evidence..."
WWII: Trench Gun - Sawed-off shotgun used by the military when attacking enemy trenches. Two soldiers jump in the trench back to back and fire down the trench in both directions to clear the way for the rest of their buddies.
This type of evidence could have been presented had the defendants showed up for court.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia [/quote]
See my prior post about militias...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174] to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.[/quote]
See my prior post about Art. 1 Sect 8 Cl 15&16 of the Constitution...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. [/quote]
Are we getting the idea?
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' 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.[/quote]
A fine statement, "...these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Doesn't sound to me like a collective right. Sounds to me like the militia was dependant on the ability of the common man to keep arms and appear, when called, armed.
After this quoted passage, Justice McReynolds goes into some of the history of 'keep and bear arms.' He quotes laws of the colonies that [quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]...implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.[/quote]
The last two paragraphs of Miller go like this:
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 [307 U.S. 174, 183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.[/quote]
'Remanded' means that the case was sent back to the lower court from which it was appealed for a new hearing.
Miller was dead...
Layton was caught and entered a plea-bargain...
The lower court did not re-try the case.
A non-decision if there ever was one!
Read it here...
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174
Just for the record, several cases since Emerson have followed the Miller ruling. The Emerson ruling was truly a renegade activist judge.
You can try to revise and twist all the cases and analysis, but it doesn't change the FACT that the second amendment is a collective right. US v Miller was not a ruling FOR indivdual rights (as some would suggest) or a non-decision. That's revisionism hoping nobody educated on the subject would notice.
From US v Miller
[quote]In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158[/quote]
Gun registration is constitutional because you do NOT have an individual right to bear arms unless your state's constitution says otherwise. You can wish it all you want, and show cause why you think it should be that way, but that's not what the law says or how it's ruled.[/quote]
Well now. An interesting opinion... But opinion it is. Let's see what we can extract from Miller...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. [307 U.S. 174, 175] Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
No appearance for appellees. [/quote]
Miller was dead... so his lawyer didn't show to argue the case.
Layton skipped bail... so his lawyer didn't show to argue the case, either.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] [/quote]
The 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934 is a tax law, NOT a gun control law.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
The cause is here by direct appeal. [/quote]
The lower court supported the 'Second Amendment' argument.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Considering Sonzinsky v. United States, 1937, 300 U.S. 506, 513 , 57 S. Ct. 554, and what was ruled in sundry causes aris- [307 U.S. 174, 178] ing under the Harrison Narcotic Act2-United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916, 241 U.S. 394 , 36 S.Ct. 658, Ann.Cas.1917D, 854; United States v. Doremus, 1919, 249 U.S. 86, 94 , 39 S.Ct. 214; Linder v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 5 , 45 S.Ct. 446, 39 A.L.R. 229; Alston v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 289 , 47 S.Ct. 634; Nigro v. United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 332 , 48 S.Ct. 388-the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.[/quote]
Based on these cases, usurpation of police powers is discharged and unusable by the defendants.
Now we get into the meat of the Miller case...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]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.[/quote]
No defence... No evidence. Defendants nor their lawyers attended.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.[/quote]
The court... "We haven't been presented with evidence..."
WWII: Trench Gun - Sawed-off shotgun used by the military when attacking enemy trenches. Two soldiers jump in the trench back to back and fire down the trench in both directions to clear the way for the rest of their buddies.
This type of evidence could have been presented had the defendants showed up for court.
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia [/quote]
See my prior post about militias...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174] to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.[/quote]
See my prior post about Art. 1 Sect 8 Cl 15&16 of the Constitution...
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. [/quote]
Are we getting the idea?
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' 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.[/quote]
A fine statement, "...these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Doesn't sound to me like a collective right. Sounds to me like the militia was dependant on the ability of the common man to keep arms and appear, when called, armed.
After this quoted passage, Justice McReynolds goes into some of the history of 'keep and bear arms.' He quotes laws of the colonies that [quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]...implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.[/quote]
The last two paragraphs of Miller go like this:
[quote=UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174]Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 [307 U.S. 174, 183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.[/quote]
'Remanded' means that the case was sent back to the lower court from which it was appealed for a new hearing.
Miller was dead...
Layton was caught and entered a plea-bargain...
The lower court did not re-try the case.
A non-decision if there ever was one!
Read it here...
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174
I hate guns, I mean I HATE GUNS, in the sense that if I were ever drafted I'd be a medic just so I could avoid guns. I do not think that registering a gun is unconstitutional. Guns are designed for the sole purpose of taking the life of another living thing. There is no constructive purpose to having or owning a gun.
Now, guns are made to kill. When used correctly, the results are killed things.
Cars are a form of transporation. When used correctly, the result is to get from point A to point B.
Obviously, when used properly, a car is much less dangerous than a gun. Yet we have to register our cars. So why should it be so different for a firearm?
Now, guns are made to kill. When used correctly, the results are killed things.
Cars are a form of transporation. When used correctly, the result is to get from point A to point B.
Obviously, when used properly, a car is much less dangerous than a gun. Yet we have to register our cars. So why should it be so different for a firearm?
QUOTE
I hate guns, I mean I HATE GUNS, in the sense that if I were ever drafted I'd be a medic just so I could avoid guns.
FYI, medics carry sidearms. You're only option would be to file as a C.O.
QUOTE
Obviously, when used properly, a car is much less dangerous than a gun. Yet we have to register our cars. So why should it be so different for a firearm?
Have you read through the previous four pages? They might contain the answer to your question.
Hi everybody! Been gone awhile. . .
I will state my position on the question posed before becoming distracted by reading all the the messages.
Registration of the firearms owned by the citizenry is permissible under one scenario. A little history first . . .
If one reviews the early Militia regulations one will see that every male 16 to 45 was to enroll in the local militia company. When mustered for training or duty each man was required to show up with certain items; a firearm of certain caliber and type, 2 lbs of lead ball to fit the bore, a horn of powder, a knapsack with a couple days provisions, etc. All these items were to be supplied by the individual himself.
At his point the commander is to take a "return of the militia" which is essentially a list of everyone's arms that will be used for militia duty.
That is the extent of permissible government listing of the citizen's arms.
So, to get a constitutional registration of (some) arms; we must have a militia law in force and many present gun restrictions (assault weapon ban in particular) will need to be repealed.
I will state my position on the question posed before becoming distracted by reading all the the messages.
Registration of the firearms owned by the citizenry is permissible under one scenario. A little history first . . .
If one reviews the early Militia regulations one will see that every male 16 to 45 was to enroll in the local militia company. When mustered for training or duty each man was required to show up with certain items; a firearm of certain caliber and type, 2 lbs of lead ball to fit the bore, a horn of powder, a knapsack with a couple days provisions, etc. All these items were to be supplied by the individual himself.
At his point the commander is to take a "return of the militia" which is essentially a list of everyone's arms that will be used for militia duty.
That is the extent of permissible government listing of the citizen's arms.
So, to get a constitutional registration of (some) arms; we must have a militia law in force and many present gun restrictions (assault weapon ban in particular) will need to be repealed.
QUOTE(astronerd @ Feb 16 2004, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Feb 15 2004, 12:36 PM)
...So yes, registering guns is completely constitutional because you do not have a RIGHT to own a gun outside of military service unless the STATE gives it you. So, if they say you need to stand on your head naked, sing "Beer for my Horses", and sign a dotted line with the appendage of your choice before you can own a gun, that's what you'll have to do. And the federal government cannot stand in the way of that. THAT is what the second amendment does.
The Constitutionality of registration differs depending on one's vantage point.
If you are a criminal, then registration is UN-Constitutional. In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination.
For the law abiding citizen, in the Kastigar vs. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) decision, the court has ruled that registration of firearms only applies to lawful citizens, not to felons.
A felon can not be charged with possesing an un-registered gun!
How weird is that?
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Feb 15 2004, 12:36 PM)
...A well-regulated, unorganized militia...sheesh...sounds like military intelligence. A complete oxymoron.
Oh, yes... "Well Regulated"... To understand the context of usage, one needs to go back to the time and place of usage to find intent. In dictionaries of the early 1800's, the term meant properly functioning as in a "well regulated clock", one that keeps proper time... Something or someone or a group that does it's job well.
And "unorganized" is a term from the 50's... That's when the US Code for the defination of a militia was last updated.
I think the problem with this, is that it is against the law for a convicted felon to own a gun, registered or not.
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/...0,3841754.story
QUOTE
U.S. law forbids felons from owning guns, with a few exceptions for antitrust and trade violations.
(Sorry, I haven't the time to find any sites that expressly state the laws).
My opinion: I'm against a federal law regarding registration (the federal government doesn't mandate registering cars, or voting). I would support a state law to require registered firearms.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.