U.S. v Miller

[Bruce]

If Miller says the Second protects "militia equipment", and our enemies say the AR-15 is a "weapons of war", then doesn't the Second protect the AR-15 as "militia equipment"?

[lowimpactuser]

Only when in a militia, and the militia is only the national guard despite the fact it's generalized and no you can't create other militias and no we can't expand militia duties to providing undercover security.

Besides, you're acting like the left cares about logic and legal precedent over emotion and "doing the right thing".

[IVC]

Technically, Miller could be used to challenge NFA/GCA, but it would more than a long shot to try to use what is essentially dicta in Miller to have a court adopt a definition "arm = any infantry weapon" when we cannot even get the protection for common rifles and handguns in CA.

[BAJ475]

Only when in a militia, and the militia is only the national guard despite the fact it's generalized and no you can't create other militias and no we can't expand militia duties to providing undercover security.

Besides, you're acting like the left cares about logic and legal precedent over emotion and "doing the right thing".

If you think that the militia is only the national guard, you should read.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

Thanks to adamjay for providing the link. See The History of the Second Amendment posted in this forum.

No disagreement that the left does not care.

[pacrat]

Only when in a militia, and the militia is only the national guard despite the fact it's generalized and no you can't create other militias and no we can't expand militia duties to providing undercover security.

Besides, you're acting like the left cares about logic and legal precedent over emotion and "doing the right thing".

First sentence is not supported by facts. But is refuted by the author of the second amendment James Madison.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

Second sentence. If leftists truly wanted to do the "right thing". They would be "rightists".

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

If you look at the Printz v. United States (1997) interpretation of the Miller case we see:

"In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

How can a non ideologically impaired person argue that an AR-15 would NOT enable a citizen to easily blend into the regular military (national guard or regular army/marines) during a time of extreme crisis / national emergency?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[TKM]

Miller was face down in a creek when he was supposed to appear.

The prosecution took his absence as a chance to ram through anything they had a mind to. What was he gonna do, appeal?

[Librarian]

As Heller divorced the right to firearms from any militia connection, Miller is no longer interesting.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

As Heller divorced the right to firearms from any militia connection, Miller is no longer interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Epaphroditus]

SCOTUS/Scalia said Miller was about the types of weapons covered ... Miller is still relevant. Scalia even alluded to dumping the NFA because of Miller!

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

[Joe Kidd]

Sadly, Justice Scalia is gone.

[Jimi Jah]

Fauxahontas will replace him.