Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control vs Social Security (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  one huge reason: (14+ / 0-)

    the second amendment.  there is right to keep and drive cars in the constitution.  there is no legal precedent that the right to operate motor vehicles shall not be infringed.

    you believe the votes to pass an AWB exist in the GOP house?

    peace

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:56:36 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Furthermore, Miller, which upheld the NFA, (14+ / 0-)

      made military and militia utility the standard by which the degree of Constitutional protection a particular arm receives.

      The judges were a bit obsolete on their understanding of current military utility (not being aware, apparently, that short-barreled shotguns were used to significant effect in the trenches of WWI), and have become more since (the utility of select-fire rifles awaiting WWII to be tested).

      But Miller makes it clear - the weapons that receive the most protection from onerous prohibitions under the 2nd are precisely those most similar to GI rifles.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:02:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Specifically this bit from the decision in Miller: (9+ / 0-)
      "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."
      Here we see that the standard to be used, in determining if the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear a particular gun, is whether or not the weapon in question "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

      As the defense did not present in Miller, no such evidence was offered in the case of the sawed-off shotgun, though such evidence was available.

      The dicta make it more clear that the SCOTUS was talking about the citizenry at large, and not the National Guard, when they spoke of the militia - contrary to the claims of gun control advocates - and that weapons protected under the 2nd would be privately owned and kept, and not government issue or held in armories:

      "The significance 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."
      A reconsideration of the NFA, in the light of changes in military usages, may well overturn much of it under the very same criteria under which it passed.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:23:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site