Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-31-2013, 6:34 PM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,687
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-31-2013, 6:58 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,844
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:03 PM
Tacit Blue's Avatar
Tacit Blue Tacit Blue is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,991
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:08 PM
Brandon04GT Brandon04GT is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SFV
Posts: 2,767
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacit Blue View Post
One could argue that the organized militia is the National guard, un organized is we the people.
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..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:15 PM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,687
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:20 PM
littlejake littlejake is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Калифорния
Posts: 2,133
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

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. Member FPC.
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)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:21 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin2 View Post
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

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)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:21 PM
Whiterabbit Whiterabbit is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,103
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacit Blue View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:24 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The National Guard was established in 1903, well after the 2nd amendment was written.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:25 PM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,687
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:26 PM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,687
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
The National Guard was established in 1903, well after the 2nd amendment was written.
National Guard is irrelevant.. the milita collectively is comprised of two parts, the organized militia and the unorganized militia (the free citizenry).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:30 PM
socal-shooter's Avatar
socal-shooter socal-shooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

very kewl
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:33 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin2 View Post
National Guard is irrelevant.. the milita collectively is comprised of two parts, the organized militia and the unorganized militia (the free citizenry).

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)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:35 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Heller has separated the right to guns from any connection to a militia. Miller is not controlling.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:54 PM
Ronin2 Ronin2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Newport Beach/PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia)
Posts: 5,687
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Heller has separated the right to guns from any connection to a militia. Miller is not controlling.
TRue but Miller still speaks to what kind of weapons were intended to be protected by the 2nd amendment
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:54 PM
Tacit Blue's Avatar
Tacit Blue Tacit Blue is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,991
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon04GT View Post
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.
No doubt. I'm not disputing that fact in regards to DC V Heller. But that case had to do with indvidual rights. I think the reason why the U.S. Govt filed a appeal in US V. Miller is to clarify that the National Guard is the orgranized miltia in modern times.

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..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:38 AM
15thaf5thbw's Avatar
15thaf5thbw 15thaf5thbw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 158
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacit Blue View Post
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.
One could, but I believe one would be wrong.

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
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:50 AM
stamina stamina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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:
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:07 PM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,912
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:09 PM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,912
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Miller was not overruled. It was re-interpreted.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-01-2013, 1:06 PM
SKSer's Avatar
SKSer SKSer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,702
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I fail to see how the national guard is the "organized militia" in how it is a branch of the US armed forces. School me if Im wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-01-2013, 1:31 PM
Rusty_Rebar Rusty_Rebar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-01-2013, 2:05 PM
stamina stamina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Justice View Post
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.
This logic is flawed. Any thing having a lawful purpose cannot lose that purpose because the thing is made illegal.

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:
Originally Posted by Rusty_Rebar
I think the important phrase is "In common use for lawful purposes"
As proponents of 2A rights, we're pretty much "all in" on those words. I do wish Kopel, et al wouldn't rely so much on the "police use them" angle. I don't have faith that will carry enough weight. SCOTUS could easily decide the police are paramilitary and therefore comparisons have no bearing on civilians. Maybe I need to get some more faith, I dunno...

Last edited by stamina; 02-01-2013 at 2:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-01-2013, 2:22 PM
rootuser rootuser is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,483
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stamina View Post

As proponents of 2A rights, we're pretty much "all in" on those words. I do wish Kopel, et al wouldn't rely so much on the "police use them" angle. I don't have faith that will carry enough weight. SCOTUS could easily decide the police are paramilitary and therefore comparisons have no bearing on civilians. Maybe I need to get some more faith, I dunno...
The police angle will never actually hold water for very long because in most of these laws, the police are exempt. I don't know a single LEO in California that carries a 10 round magazine for example. Saying "The police carry it" and therefore it is in common usage isn't exactly a straight line. The courts have recognized this. If all we have left is "the police carry it", we're doomed.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-01-2013, 5:06 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ventura
Posts: 10,386
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-01-2013, 6:43 PM
stamina stamina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
The police angle will never actually hold water for very long because in most of these laws, the police are exempt. I don't know a single LEO in California that carries a 10 round magazine for example. Saying "The police carry it" and therefore it is in common usage isn't exactly a straight line. The courts have recognized this. If all we have left is "the police carry it", we're doomed.
I think your argument falls into the "circularity" trap. Gura believes that things such as if it's legal (which would seem to apply; "only cops carry it" means it's illegal for normal citizens) will not be a deciding factor in the "common use" determination, for reasons outlined in the post above yours.

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..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:01 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin2 View Post
TRue but Miller still speaks to what kind of weapons were intended to be protected by the 2nd amendment
Miller doesn't speak to anything, it was completely abrogated by Heller. Multiple courts have confirmed this, if it wasn't already clear enough from the Heller opinion itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Justice View Post
Miller was not overruled. It was re-interpreted.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:25 PM
sunborder sunborder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
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.
And current law defines the unorganized militia. Thus, the unorganized militia has already been formed.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:30 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:48 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
are there failed court cases that attempted to overturn hughes amendment and NFA? (besides criminal cases)
I'm not aware of any outside criminal cases, but there may be some out there, possibly at the district level.

I believe the last word on the subject comes (pre-Heller) from United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176 (4th Cir.1992):
Quote:
What Jones is really complaining about is that the amendment to the Gun Control Act effectively rendered possession of certain guns automatic violations of both the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Yet there is nothing either inconsistent or unconstitutionally unfair about Congress' decision to do so.
That was of course a criminal case. Subsequent cases have generally confirmed this, however there have been some deviations. Someday I believe (unlike Alan Gura) that we be able to overturn the NFA (and parts of the GCA), for several legal reasons. It will be awhile, however, before it would be wise to make the attempt.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:59 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 1,875
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin2 View Post
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!

You get no argument from me, I have come to a similar conclusion years ago.
Now were the SCOTUS as wise as we.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-01-2013, 9:22 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-01-2013, 9:47 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by California44 View Post
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

How can a firearm be "typically possessed" if its been banned for a sufficiently long period of time? Hypothetically, if, say, 10 million otherwise law-abiding citizens shortened the barrel on their personal shotgun, would short-barreled shotguns become legal under Miller?
First off, that's under Heller. Second, it's a good question. Logically I think they would have to look at, what would an ordinary law-abiding citizen possess for lawful purposes? So if you can make an argument that there is a lawful purpose for a weapon shared by many citizens, the Second Amendment should protect those weapons. The fact that a small number of citizens (or none) possess such weapons due to a previous and questionably constitutional ban should be irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:09 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by California44 View Post
Similar question... if a handgun that is commonly owned in the United States and is protected in part on the point above, how can it be Constitutional for California to make illegal, via omission from the Approved List, such a handgun? I think the answer might be that the list exists in the name-of safety and that a manufacture has an option to produce a handgun that meets the list's requirements and after paying a certification fee, but I still do see how a state's safety statute trumps (or rather, infringes upon) a Constitutional right and is effective in banning a handgun that is widely owned in the US.
Well, that's a very different question. Essentially you are asking what the scope of the Second Amendment protection is. In other words, what sort of gun laws will be found valid/invalid where the Second Amendment applies. The answer is no one knows yet, because the Supreme Court has not given us a test, or even a level of scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-01-2013, 11:40 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Justice View Post
Miller was not overruled. It was re-interpreted.
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)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-01-2013, 11:49 PM
phrogg111's Avatar
phrogg111 phrogg111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Folsom
Posts: 710
iTrader: 10 / 92%
Default

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.

Know your rights. When stopped by police and not doing anything wrong, tell them you don't consent to searches. They are allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to them. Just say nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:11 AM
stamina stamina is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by California44 View Post
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

How can a firearm be "typically possessed" if its been banned for a sufficiently long period of time? Hypothetically, if, say, 10 million otherwise law-abiding citizens shortened the barrel on their personal shotgun, would short-barreled shotguns become legal under Miller?
This is the "circularity" problem that Gura has addressed. How can it be in common use if it's illegal? Or, how can it be in common use if it was just invented?

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:
Originally Posted by California44
if a handgun that is commonly owned in the United States and is protected in part on the point above, how can it be Constitutional for California to make illegal, via omission from the Approved List, such a handgun?
Gura addressed this as well. IIRC, he maintains the CA list in unconstitutional on commerce grounds, among other things. Since the state limits legal purchases to some subset of the market, the state then deforms that market, which is a no-no. I think he mentioned that if the state had some reasonable and objective requirements which all (in this case) guns had to meet, such as "gun must not accidentally fire when dropped", then there would be no problem, but to just allow some guns on the roster and not others which are essentially identical is irrational.

Last edited by stamina; 02-02-2013 at 9:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:17 AM
vantec08 vantec08 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 3,801
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacit Blue View Post
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.
The militia is not a creature of the state. The Natl. Guard is a direct bureau of the standing army.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-02-2013, 1:37 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vantec08 View Post
The militia is not a creature of the state. The Natl. Guard is a direct bureau of the standing army.



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..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:05 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.