You can take that line if you want to. Me, I want some nooky.
Far be it from me to suggest or imply, either directly or indirectly, through admission or not, that wimmins is in any way, shape, form, etc., incapable, or less capable, than men.
Besides, it’s not implicit to the wording of the 2nd that one has to be in service to a militia, or even be capable of service in a militia, to keep and bear. It simply establishes in the opening (subjective) clause that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state; in the second (operative) clause it establishes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Now, what do they get to keep and bear arms for? In the case of call-up to militia service. That doesn’t preclude any other ordinary, legal uses of said firearms. The problem being, and I guess I’ll say it again (for the umpteenth time): *Miller is flawed (as a representative, sample case, if not in fact) * because only the government’s case was represented. That’s kinda what happens when the government makes a case against a dirt-poor schlep from Oklahoma who can’t afford to hire a lawyer to argue his case in front of a court over a thousand miles away from home. The way the Treasury Dept. made a case against a dirt-poor schlep from Idaho and his family in 1992? Or a bunch of religious fundamentalists in Waco in 1993?
The Supremes only judged the case on the merits of just the government’s argument (being as it was the ONLY argument presented). With the NRA, the SAF, the CCRKBA, and others, it’s doubtful that, if a similar case came before the Supreme’s today (or even the same court back when), that the poor schlep would be left twisting in the wind.
Two Treasury agents got themselves embarassed because they caught a suspected Okie bootlegger (hell, Jack Miller was a bootlegger!) empty-handed, and only had a sawed-off shotgun to hold him on and make a case to prosecute him. The Arkansas judge (Federal District Judge Heartsill Ragon, for the Western District of Arkansas) who heard the case tossed it, because there is no mention in the 2nd about what type of arms the people could keep and bear for service to a militia. He found for the defendant on the strength of Mr. Paul Gutensohn’s (the court-appointed defense of Mssrs. Jack Miller and Frank Layton) argument that a $200 tax on a $10 gun was nothing less than a blatant infringement of their rights. It’s like paying a $10 tax on a $0.50 newspaper.
By definition, the militia would appear bearing their own arms, whatever type they may be, or whatever type may be established by the respective States, or by Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
As no such provision had been made or enforced, Miller’s sawed-off shotgun was a legitimate militia weapon. Whether or not it was “ordinary military equipment” was not relevant. The militia is not the ordinary military. It is private citizens bearing their own arms in defense of community, state, and/or nation.
The National Firearms Act, which made Miller’s sawed-off illegal, was designed as a revenue raising measure, which is extremely ludicrous on its face. First, there is no Constitutional provision for Congress to determine which weapons are good or bad as a revenue raising measure, unless you hold to a totally elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Secondly, most ordinary firearms ran between $10 to $25 in those days; a $200 tax is not going to raise revenue. You don’t even need a first-year economics student can tell you that!
Your average handgun, today, runs between $500-$600. IS a $200 tax on them reasonable, or punitive? Designed to raise revenue or kill sales?
Bonus Question: name the Communist mick bastard from New York who proposed legislation levying a 10,000% tax on firearm ammunition in an attempt to kill gun sales, and therefore backdoor-ban all firearms.
When Jack Miller and Frank Layton walked free from that courthouse, they disappeared. Mr. Gutensohn, his duty discharged, heard nothing else from them, but UL has it that he received some money in crisp clean bills and a thank you note from Jack Miller. Unfortunately, Mr. Gutensohn was not retained to argue US v. Miller in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Attorney Gordon Dean had a clear shot at telling an artfully crafted lie, and having it sail past Roosevelt’s infamous “packed court” completely unchallenged. Supreme Court apologists have suggested that perhpas Chief Justice McReynolds, et al, were not aware of the full scope of the provisions of the National Firearms Act.
Bullshit, I says. That’s their job. If the laws of the land are too complex, too convoluted for a panel of 9 of the most intellignet, wise, highly educated judges our nation has to offer, then it’s bad law, and a bad situation all around.
But, in the end, it may be for the best. Because the courts of 1939 ruled that, quite specifically, those weapons (specifically!) in ordinary use by the military do enjoy protection from infringement by the 2nd. As no such weapons, legally held and owned, have been used in “violent crime sprees,” there’s little reason or cause to have them banned, restricted, or otherwise “infringed.”
Magazine Bans? Gone.
Bans on rifles with black finish? Gone.
Bans on rifles with pistol-style grips? Gone.
Bans on rifles with magazine well forward of the trigger? Gone.
Bans on rifles with bayonet lugs? Gone.
Severe (dare I say, draconian?) restrictions on automatic weaponry? Gone.
And actually, your exclusion of women is interesting. Do you wish also to exclude minorities on this trivial point, as well? The only reason we haven’t had to incorporate women into the Selective Service is because we haven’t had a need to. Maybe it’s high time we did. Equal Rights, and all that.
Trust me: if Uncle needed the bodies, the wimmins would be getting drafted right alongside the menfolk.
Our “arch-conservative patriarchy” has conspired to keep the wimmins bare-foot and preagnant thus far, and in the lack of total, civilization-destroying warfare (us-or-them style), it’ll prolly stay that way.
But I find it ironic that, in your view, a woman can be a fighter pilot, but not a militia member as a general citizen.
In a way, Captain Amazing, I thank you. Seriously, and not sarcastically.
Because of yours and others (Spavined Gelding, and minty green) tortuous game of semantics, I have had to re-examine my apologist, accomodating stance on moderation and compromise concerning firearms and the gun control debate.
Answer: The “Honorable” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
The lone fact that legislation proposing a 10,000% tax on ammunition would even be admitted to the floor for discussion in a Congress of the United States should be enough to scare the willies out of any citizen.
Alarm bell are ringing, folks.