In United States v. Miller, SCOTUS ruled that only militia weapons were covered by the 2nd.
Yet nobody argues this.
In United States v. Miller, SCOTUS ruled that only militia weapons were covered by the 2nd.
Quotes from Heller:
“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.” (50)
“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.” (52)
“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.” (53)
https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/
Regards
Jack
IMHO that’s why they went out of their way in heller to say they didn’t want to trash “long standing” rules. You know, like they did with slavery...
If they say the NFA is unconstitutional, imagine the fallout. Chickens little will all be screaming.
Those banned for warfare by Geneva and other conventions.Tell me what firearm can't be readily used as a militia weapon? Some may be better for a specific purpose but all can be utilized if needed. Plus all members of the militia were expected to provide their own firearms when called.
Because Miller was not thought to constitute the threat to the 2A that was later construed and promoted by later federal courts and academics such as Adam Winkler.A real tragedy with the Miller decision was that no one showed to contest the government's case before the Supreme Court. The NRA wasn't into such things at the time...not really until the '60s in any meaningful fashion.
If just some attorney argued for the other side before the Court the decision may have come out differently. As it was the government won by default.
Exactly. A firearm not typically used by military forces, specifically not used bu US militia, and arguably to be limited by Hague convention (several countries argued in WWI that shotguns were prohibited by convention language).The weapon in the case was a short barreled shotgun. Miller had died before the SCOTUS ruled.
Yet nobody argues this.
The flaw in Chief Justice Robert's turning Obamacare into a tax was twofold...whether it was a tax wasn't at issue with the case...it was his decision that turned it into a tax. The other is that all revenues (taxes) must originate in the House of Representatives according to the Constitution. The issue being argued had originated in the Senate. Based upon any reasonably objective reading of the Constitution the idea of the ACA being a tax is contrary to the Constitution. But...the SCOTUS decided otherwise based upon the flawed reasoning of the Chief Justice.
As Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1819..."The power to tax involves the power to destroy." Very prescient words and history has borne that out.
Lets all go back to the original constitution...no female or minority voting...to qualify to cast a vote you must own land...21 years old to vote.