Interesting. This is in line with something I was thinking about after posting last night. The way I see it, the SC in Miller was trying to find some rational grounds for denying that anything that could be conceivably used as a weapon was automatically protected by the 2nd. The fact that the weapon in question was a short-barreled shotgun somewhat muddies the issue, since short-barreled shotguns have been used militarily. Suppose the case had instead involved a derringer, a zip gun, a switchblade knife, a blackjack or a homemade shiv. (You might ask what business the federal government has being concerned with those things, but that’s the ICC for you.) The court decided that the dividing line was military usefullness. They said in effect “What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with possession of a holdup gun?” In a similar vein, years later there was an outcry over so-called “Saturday Night Specials”: guns that supposedly were cheaply and shoddily made, one step up from a zip gun, which had little utility except as an easily obtained and disposable crime weapon. (An exaggeration incidently.)
I can see what the SC was trying to accomplish; the early 30s were a time of great fear about crime, exerbated by the fact that so many major metropolitan areas border state lines. Given the circumstances of the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration sought to expand federal authority to deal with all the problems that only the Fed had the resources to address. But I believe Miller set a bad precedent, because even if the court only intended to dismiss the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects anything conceivably usable as a weapon, it’s practical effect has been to suggest that non-military civilian firearms have no protection. Just as “separate but equal” sounded good on paper, I believe Miller should be judged by it’s consequences, and overturned.
National Guard members while on duty use weapons issued to them from the NG armories, and turn them back in when they’re done. They don’t get to take their automatic rifles home with them or own them privately.
It makes it legal for the government to draft civilians in time of war, since the federal government is empowered to call out the “militia” to execute the laws of the nation (congressional declarations of war and resolutions calling for use of military force being considered laws for this purpose).
So apparently, the 2nd Amendment means “You have the right to be drafted and have the army issue you a weapon”. :rolleyes:
Pretty much every gun control advocate who ever claimed Miller as a collective rights victory.
The judgement isn’t about whether or not Miller had second amendment rights. It was about whether or not bearing the specific gun in question fell under those rights.
Because the judgement was wrong. The prosecution argued specifically that the gun with the serial number XXXX has never been used militarily and therefore wasn’t protected by the second amendment. This is a logically weak argument - first, you don’t have to prove that specific gun was used in a military sense, and secondly short barreled shotguns as a class of weapon do have military usefulness. If there was a defense to the case, they would’ve put forth this argument. Because there wasn’t, no real argument was made. The prosecution was playing lawyer games. They couldn’t say “short barreled shotguns aren’t militarily useful”, but they can say “the shotgun bearing serial number XXXX has never been used in a military manner” and technically probably be telling the truth.
:rolleyes:
Wow, gee, you solved the whole issue there, didn’t you? All in about 10 words. Impressive.
Does Miller somewhere dictate that the second amendment only applies to national guard members?
And I doubt this will change your rhetoric at all - I’m sure you’ll be completely unfazed in your stance by any facts or argument no matter how compelling - but “well-regulated” in 18th century parlance didn’t always refer to “heavily controlled by regulation”, but rather that something be in good order and functional. If you set a clock and made sure it was functioning correctly, you were regulating that clock.
As Cecil himself says: " But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half."
Yeah, I know. I used to participate in these threads more - at the time, Minty Green filled that role for the most part - but it’s tiring arguing at people rather than discussing things with them. Very few people who are posting or reading these threads has any real interest in the discussion, logic, or facts - their minds are made up and they’re going to throw their arguments at each other.
When I think people are actually going to really listen to what I have to say - even if they might eventually reject it - I’m happy to spend hours and hours conveying my view. But if nothing you can say has any affect on anyone then you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
By you, Elvis. You are wrong. You are not correct. You can not say why you are correct.
If there had been a defense, the defense could have shown the use of short barreled shotguns in the military.
Specifically, the
You do not understand what ‘Well-Regulated’ means. It means ‘in good order’, much like ‘Well-Tempered’ means ‘in tune’. It has nothing to do with legal regulations. Do you understand these words?
Do you understand that there are militia forces other than the US National Guard? For example, the NY State Guard, Blackwater, and the crazy people over in the Minutemen.
A note: If Elvis can explain why he thinks he is correct, I am listening. However, he does not seem to have that ability. This is why I am asking him, in very clear and direct language, to explain his somewhat unique view of reality.
Does that not imply to you that there are guns that do not fall under those rights? And that therefore the right is limited? And that the Court has stated what those limits are?
Too damn bad then, buddy. It’s the law whether you like it or not. SC rulings are final, right or wrong. Your reasons for disagreeing Just Don’t Matter. You and ExTank can console each other that way all you like, even complain about being told you’re doing it, and it still won’t make a damn bit of difference in the real world.
I didn’t solve a damn thing there. The Supreme Court did so with a ruling, as is its function - again, whether you like it or not.
By using as the basis for assessing its applicability the “well-regulated militia” standard, in combination with legislation that made all state militias the Guard, yes. Is there any other logically-consistent way to read it?
The Second both defines a right and defines the limits in which it applies. That’s the law of the land, again whether you like it or not (or if I like it or not for that matter). You can either accept it or go work to get it changed.
I would be saying the same to you, except I do not consider flippant and arrogant remarks to be a suitable substitute for facts and reasoned arguments in a debate. :dubious:
You still haven’t explained why you think the ruling means what you think it does. Yes, the Supreme Court has stated what the limits on the Second Amendment are. Specifically, they said that if a weapon is without military utility, it is not protected. That’s all they said. They didn’t redefine the militia, they didn’t redefine “the People.”
Seriously, Elvis, you’re not doing your side any favors. I think even people who agree with you about the Second Amendment have to realize by now that Miller doesn’t back you up. Would anybody care to make an actual argument on his behalf? I would actually appreciate that at this point.
What do you think I think it says? Well, let’s see …
Good. That’s the heart of it. Glad you agree - with how I described it, that is.
Nor did they need to. The “collective right” position asserts that there is a right that extends beyond the context of the militia. You’ve acknowledged that it does not extend there, given Miller. The definitions of “Militia” and “People” matter only insofar as they form the collective-right argument. But that’s a nullity, as you yourself acknowledged - just an opinion about what they should have ruled instead of what they did rule. So what are you complaining about?
The “sides” here are (1) the fact of what the law is, and (2) the vast ocean of irrelevant opinions about what the law should be. I haven’t taken a position on the latter at all, not in this discussion.
Please explain further on this, giving specific examples. This seems to be the core of your philosophy. What, exactly, do your sentences here mean? I’m afraid that “The definitions of “Militia” and “People” matter only insofar as they form the collective-right argument.” seems to be begging the question, insofar as you state that the correct answer is the collective-right argument, and then stating that the definitions only matter because they form the collective-right argument, which is therefore correct.
I have heard this argument before, but my perusing of dictionaries does not support that view. If they meant “small arms” they could have said so. In fact, the term bear arms was more likely to mean wage war in the 18th century than it is to mean carry weapons.
From Cambridge Dictionary Of American English -
arms
plural noun
weapons and explosives used in fighting wars He believes in the right to own and bear arms.
From Newbury House Dictionary of American English -
arms /armz/ n.pl.
weapons of war, such as rifles and cannons: Countries sell arms to other countries for defense and war.
I have not stated what the *right * definition is. The Supreme Court has stated what the *operative * definition, the one that constitutes the law we all must live by, is. See the difference?
Look, guys, it’s completely fine to say the people we empower to make those decisions got one wrong, and why. That’s what debate is all about, and it’s a sign of a healthy democracy.
But it is certainly *not * fine to say their decisions can be ignored if we don’t aree with them, or (more remarkably) that they haven’t even been made at all. Those are *not * signs of a healthy democracy. So why do we see that anyway?
As long as it’s part of your being in a “well-regulated militia”. Otherwise your ownership is under the control of simple statute, not the (silent) Constitution.
Please show me specifically where the Supreme Court said that this was not an individual right. This will come as a complete surprise to the Justice Department, and I want to make sure they’re aware of it.
That’s nice. We’re not saying that. We are saying that you are not stupid, but you are wrong.
