|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Military style semi auto rifles are protected per 2nd amendment and US Supreme Court
United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service),[1] with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, '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.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2] The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points: 1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury. 2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce. 3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. 4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Interesting.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850) |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
One could argue that the organized militia is the National guard, un organized is we the people. I think the government realized that the guard became accidentily disarmed.
__________________
"All that is complex is not useful. All that is useful is simple." Mikhail Kalashnikov *... Last edited by Tacit Blue; 01-31-2013 at 7:07 PM.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, but one could also argue that per DC v. Heller, the second amendment is an individual right and the US previously argued in US v. Miller that the second amendment protects military-type guns that would be of appropriate use to an organized militia. But it doesn't solely protected for "organized militias" only.
Last edited by Brandon04GT; 01-31-2013 at 7:10 PM.. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Here is the definition of the "militia" according to Title 10 U.S. Code:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Just to answer the question in advance; 32 USC § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age. (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must— (1) be a citizen of the United States; and (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64. Last edited by Ronin2; 01-31-2013 at 7:17 PM.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Heller decision throws out the first clause regarding militia. It boils down the 2A to the operative clause -- "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed."
Of significance in Miller is (1) "The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury." Well, ATF is no longer under Treasury. It was realigned under the Department of Justice. Hence, the SOT required in Miller is nullified. Now to argue that before SCOTUS.
__________________
Life Member NRA and 2A Foundation. My posts are my own opinions and do not reflect those of any organization I am a member of. Nothing I post should be construed as legal advice; if you need legal advice, see a lawyer. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt (1759-1806) |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I doubt that Miller would be a case that anyone would use for precedent now because only one side was heard and we now have a later ruling (Heller) that relies on self defense as its bases. But what do I know? I agree that the militia clause is a strong argument that arms of military significance have an even greater degree of protection. But after living with the NFA for four generations that goes against the grain of too many people. There is often a difference between what is right and what is doable.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Doesnt matter. the test reads arms are protected. The militia part is just extra phrasing, changing nothing radically if removed. If the text said "protects military arms to be used by the org militia", maybe.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
My point is that all this goes to the the founders INTENT with the 2nd Amendment, having EVERYTHING to do with a check against government tyranny/foreign attack and not limited to just self defense and sport!
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Actually at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted the unorganized malita was males between 17 & 45 only. That would not go over well with a lot of people today.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Heller has separated the right to guns from any connection to a militia. Miller is not controlling.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Althought it's historic routes trace by back the revolutionary war. The Milita act of 1903 changed everything, and we became the 'unorgranized militia.' Unless you part of a state self defense force such as the California State Military Reserve. This is the way I interpret the case in regards to the appeal filed. The OP also left out the conclusion of the case. "Conclusion The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed- off double barrel shotgun. With Justice James Clark McReynolds writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument."
__________________
"All that is complex is not useful. All that is useful is simple." Mikhail Kalashnikov *... Last edited by Tacit Blue; 01-31-2013 at 8:23 PM.. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Setting aside what others have already cited, that the National Guard is a contrivance subsequent to the establishment of the Constitution and BOR, if you read Federalist Paper No.29 I think you would, as I did, glean from it that the Founding Fathers, well, at least Hamilton, believed that the Militia was a separate entity from the "Standing Army". He also cites the conceptual difference between "regulations", as in noun, and "regulation", as in verb, one being the "rules" and the other being the "process" and "by whom" when he says ... "What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS?" Is not our National Guard part of, managed by, commanded by, what we call our "Standing Army"? We have the Army National Guard, and the Air National Guard. So it would seem that the great distinction made by Hamilton in FP.29 between the Militia and a Standing Army is NOT present in what today we would call our "National Guard". How can you have a separate military entity of We The People (the Militia) who's command structure falls under the military establishment who's very existence is what mandates the existence of the Militia in the first place? You can't. I believe if you read FP.29, and other FPs (like 46) you can obtain the broader context of view the FF held when designing our intended form of government. They viewed the State as something completely separate from and governed distinctly seperate and different from the national/federal government. I believe we have lost this context, and the vacuum that loss has created is being exploited by those who would do harm (for their own iniquitous reasons) to the principles, values, property, and lives that were fought for, won, and purchased by so much suffering and blood, from then until today; which is to say, forgetting the lessons of history means surety of repeating those same mistakes. The Communists have done a great job of completing some (most) of their cited axioms for non-violent "take over" of the US. Part of that has been the usurpation of the Media and 30+ years of brainwashing about more than just anti-gun fanatacism. So it would seem that to reverse this insidiously skewed social consciousness would take about as long if attempted in the same manner. I believe we do not have the same of amount of time to reverse that result in that way.
__________________
Only the land of the BRAVE will save the home of the FREE. Last edited by 15thaf5thbw; 02-01-2013 at 10:39 AM.. Reason: spelling |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The opinion in Heller addresses Miller, and what types of weapons it allows, so instead of guessing, we can go straight to the source:
Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Sona SCOTUS decision on a semi-auto ban could go either way.
If banned, they become unlawful, having no lawful purpose, thus they are not protected. -OR- a ban cannot stand because semi-autos are typically possesed and used for lawful purposes, and are therefore protected. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I think the important phrase is "In common use for lawful purposes". Obviously this applies to "Assault Weapons" as almost every police cruiser has an AR. It would have to also apply to standard capacity magazines. It may not apply to high cap magazines (read: 50 and 100 rd drums), as those, as far as I know, are not generally used in military or police situations. I also think this should apply for fully automatic weapons, as those are in use by both law enforcement and military, although I doubt seriously that this would fly.
I think when the rubber finally meets the road SCOUTS will say that if the police are using this type of weapon, then civilians should be able to as well. Nothing short of that even makes sense. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You would have to make the purpose of the thing illegal for the thing (assuming it had just one purpose) to have no lawful purpose. It also sounds like you might be trying to articulate what some call the "circularity issue", where the common use test would somehow fail to apply to illegal weapons, because if illegal they couldn't be in common use. Gura has debunked that several times. The test might be better worded as "in common use, or would be in common use..." Such a test is more logical, because it prevents abuses such as the "let's make it illegal and then it can't be in common use" while also allowing forward technological progress. A gun / weapon which was just invented, or even a new model of an old weapon would be illegal, since it can't possibly be in common use if it was just invented. So, even if the new weapon were superior to the current version in every way, it would be illegal. Using Gura's understanding of the common use test, this new technological breakthrough will allow the weapon to enter the public domain for lawful purposes. Quote:
Last edited by stamina; 02-01-2013 at 2:08 PM.. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
You all need to remember civilians have no right to form a Militia.
The State has no right to wage war, only to defend itself against attack. The people are given the right of SELF-DEFENSE. The Government has the right to FORM a Militia...just as a Sheriff has the authority to form a Posse. Civilians have no right to form neither Posse nor Militia. Vigilante justice and organized paramilitary organization is illegal. Therefore you can not look at legal standings that appear to give you the right to do something you clearly have no right to do. Arizona cannot invade Mexico to secure its border. No matter how "hurt" it is. No matter who defines "defending itself" in a court case...it cannot do it. The 2nd was written to ACKNOWLEDGE a citizens right to military arms for two reasons; 1) To answer the call to arms request from the Government when the GOVERNMENT forms a Militia. Militia = a Government formed and Government controlled group of soldiers made up of civilians. 2) For personal self-defense as an INDIVIDUAL. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My personal fear (and I'll admit it's not rational, it's more of a "KC Brown pessimism" thing ) of the "police use it" argument is that SCOTUS could view the police as a different animal entirely from normal civilians... Last edited by stamina; 02-01-2013 at 7:17 PM.. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
No, it was abrogated. It's over. Gone. Dead. Buried. This is actually a good thing, as Heller grants a much more broad right than Miller. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
are there failed court cases that attempted to overturn hughes amendment and NFA? (besides criminal cases)
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves. Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join. NRA Member JOIN HERE/ Last edited by mag360; 02-01-2013 at 8:35 PM.. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I believe the last word on the subject comes (pre-Heller) from United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176 (4th Cir.1992): Quote:
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You get no argument from me, I have come to a similar conclusion years ago. Now were the SCOTUS as wise as we.
__________________
F@$% Joe Biden Quote:
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not seeing how the Miller case fits into this. The Miller case appears to apply a collective principle under which an organized militia would have an equivalent armory. The Heller case confers an individual right independent of any participation/membership in a militia. Furthermore the SCOTUS opinions stated that individual right is subject to "reasonable" regulation. The question is what the definition of "reasonable" is at this time to my understanding. Does that mean reasonable as in shall issue with the reasonable being "must not be a felon or insane" or does it mean reasonable in the sense banning semi-autos by cosmetic features is reasonable?
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
In an artful copout.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
No one has to be a member of "the militia" to be a member of "the people, who have rights.
The militia is just a gathering of people. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Not the militia. The pople's right is necessary to the security of a free state.
__________________
Hunting is a loophole in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. There is no privilege to keep and bear arms. Arms are for killing people. All other uses of an arm are illegitimate uses. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Gura's answer is that the common use test should be read as something more along the lines of, "in common use, or would be in common use..." SBSs specifically would certainly be a battle of "would be" (shotguns are commonly used for home defense, and shortening one makes it much easier in a confined env like the home) against the ever-nebulous state's interest in public safety. Quote:
Last edited by stamina; 02-02-2013 at 9:15 AM.. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
The militia is not a creature of the state. The Natl. Guard is a direct bureau of the standing army.
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The National Guard is indeed a creature of the state, unless and until it is federalized. But that is easily and often done; it does not even require the concurrence of the state. Under those circumstances it cannot be considered a citizen militia. The "free state" the second amendment addresses is not just the federal government; it includes each of the several states individually. The evils of government tyranny, which was one of the issues the 2A was designed to address, can be perpetrated by a state as well as by the federal government. How is a state controlled military establishment supposed to discourage tyranny committed by that state? It cannot; but a citizen militia, more disposed to follow conscience than orders, can. And in most cases without firing a shot. Just knowing it exists is enough to discourage many scoundrels. Does anyone think that the stockpiling of arms and ammunition by the true citizen militia is going unnoticed by some less than scrupulous enemies of freedom at home and abroad?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) Last edited by Meplat; 02-02-2013 at 1:39 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|