View Single Post
  #273  
Old 09-08-2019, 03:27 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The individual-rights concept not having been invented yet,
In 1876 the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms for self defense in public from the KKK / Night Riders, as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in 1873 Louisiana, a state that had no state militia, it having been disbanded by Congress. Even if the state had a militia, these two men of African decent were not allowed to even enroll because US law only allowed "free White male citizens" to be members.

So, you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
and there being no significant group yet created to support it.
NFA-34 was the first federal gun law and it was written in the tax code. Congress knew then that it could not actually ban machine guns and other Title II arms but it presumed it could tax the transfer of them between citizens (and the only way to make sure the tax was recorded was to create a registry). So far the power for that has been upheld (although it has been questioned, the latest being in Heller).

As far as a significant group, the NRA was established in 1871. Of course their opposition to gun control didn't really get rolling until 1968, with the next round of federal gun laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It would have been like a legal argument that the sky is actually green.
There wasn't any "legal argument" against the individual right (at least federally). That states wrote and enforced laws disarming Blacks was a major reason why the 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified. Nobody questioned that citizens possessed an individual right to arms; even the horrible case of Dred Scott v Sanford can be pointed to because Tanney observed that if Blacks were accepted as citizens, they would possess the right to keep and bear arms wherever they went.

Even after Blacks became citizens and even after the 14th Amendment, Blacks were put under laws disarming them and state militias were the brutal enforcers o the "Black Codes". This is where we see the "militia right" interpretation being employed by states to defeat the right to arms claims of Black citizens. Since the federal Militia Act said only Whites could be militia members, states that wanted to see Black stay disarmed argued that the right to arms was only for militia members . . . and viola, Blacks could be excluded from having any gun rights recognized. That disgusting, anti-constitutional argument was revived in 1942 to pervert Miller and the rights of all US citizens were held in legal purgatory for 66 years until Heller threw that shit out.

So, you're wrong again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It has been asserted, not "pointed out", and unfortunately not with any historical support.
It was just 3 years later in Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) . . . The lower federal court decision that introduced the "milita right" interpretation I spoke of above, into the federal courts (paragraph breaks added):

"At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon.

In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.

But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, . . . "
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
To clarify, Miller confirmed what had been the common understanding that the Second has no applicability outside militia use. Heller reversed that.
Wrong again . . . You are deluded or severely misinformed and no, Heller set the record straight, it didn't disturb Miller, it affirmed it.

.