Are professional sports leagues organized by the government? No? They are in good order, though. Remember, the difference here is between the Organized Militia (The US National Guard) and the New York Guard, who are clearly not Organized by that definition… though they are by all others.
And what’s your point about the second, Brains? Pistols, shotguns, assault rifles are all militia weapons.
Here is what your (Elvis) source states:
"On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court."
Were I Miller’s attorney, I would have argued that #1 was absolutely false. A $200 tax on an item that costs $30 is not a revenue enhancing item, but has an eye toward prohibition.
I would further argue that #2 is irrelevant, as any item can be taken from one state to another, whether it is a machine gun or a cup of coffee. To construe the federal government’s power over interstate commerce to mean “any item which may be transported” would be absurd, at it is not a limiting factor on its power, but a blank check for total rule.
#3 is what we are talking about here. I see no restrictive statements that the right of the “people to keep and bear arms” MUST, and EXCLUSIVELY be in relationship to any militia, let alone a well-regulated one.
And that point #4 is absurd because of my point #3, and that conceding the government on point #3, the fact that a person’s particular weapon has never been used in militia service doesn’t mean that it isn’t a militia weapon.
If that were true, the day after the BOR was ratified, the federal government could have outlawed all privately owned weapons on the basis that the individual weapons held were not previously used in militia service (under the new rules). Clearly not a scenario that the framers envisioned.
Also, if govt’s point #3 is conceded, then the argument that short-barrelled shotguns, automatic weapons, etc. are military arms (with a long history of service by the National Guard, local militias and Regular Army troops) serves an individual with the right to keep and bear them, with a view of perserving a well-regulated militia.
But then maybe the court still wouldn’t agree with me. That doesn’t make them right. I’m sure you will agree that Dred Scott and Plessy were terrible decisions that deserved no respect at all…
That being said, I’m not ready for revolution as well. I have a family. But if the infrigements become too great then I have a right and a duty to throw off the tyranny as Jefferson said.
And you want to criticise Natural Law? Look no further that the DOI…
So, why did we need the 15th and 19th amendments? The 15th was passed only 2 years after the 14th, and Congress had already passed a bill declaring that all persons born in the US, regardless of their race, were citizens of the US.
And why, when the constitution already says (per article 4) that “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” did that not mean what you are saying the 14th means?
It’s clear to me that the incorporation argument was something added on after the fact, and was not part of the original intent of the 14th.
What the hell? The difference is between the organized and the *unorganized * militia. ALL mailes 17-45. Most of whom are NOT in the New York Guard.
But only if they are regulated by the militia (well-regulated at that) are they covered by the Second. You don’t have to *like * that, but, well, so what?
bobtheoptimist, does that mean you *cannot * define where the line should be drawn after all? You’ve quite energetically dismissed the question as silly, but it’s still the question. Oh well, when come back, bring argument.
jtgain, a fair enough description. But the case was ruled on the militia use of sawed-off shotguns, and your only counterargument amojnts to calling it “absurd”. That is not a reliable method of convincing judges. Look up “begging the question” sometime.
Bobo, you’ve got to admit that your comparisons are pretty silly.
Substitute “destroyer escort” for “boats”, and “shotguns” for “cans of diet soda”.
Now you’re talkin’. 
mangeorge
…What? Are you just making stuff up now? What would it even mean for a rifle to be “well-regulated”? :dubious:
Again, I have to ask where you think the restrictive language is that makes “well-regulation” any kind of requirement for arms or citizens to be protected under the Second Amendment. Just because the words “well-regulated” exist in the text of the amendment doesn’t mean you can just attach them to whatever other words or concepts you please.
I think the argument against that would be the simple observation that short-barreled shotguns had in fact been used by military forces in many previous conflicts. That right there invalidates the SCOTUS justification for saying that 2A does not protect that particular class of arms.
In the context of this discussion, to be part of the Guard inventory.
The first clause of the amendment itself. Where the Framers took care to *explain * its purpose. How much clearer can it be? The Supremes thought it was obvious in Miller; why don’t you?
To repeat the Miller ruling: “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” The fact that a weapon used by the militia (the well-regulated kind, not the unorganized kind) can also be used by civilians does not, under that holding, make its ownership and use protected. Only militia use is protected. The language is clear.
Is there anything else troubling you lately, my son?
How dare anybody have another interpretation. It’s settled law!
Just like Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Bowers v. Hardwick. The Supreme Court can’t ever make a bad decision, even when the defense actually troubles themselves to show up and it’s not a default judgment.
Okay, so that’s what you think it means. I’m still curious why you think that the justifying idea (“a well-regulated militia is necessary”) naturally implies that the declaration of a right (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is contingent upon all these other ideas you have spun up out of thin air (“a person must be a member of a government-controlled militia”, “the arms must be in a Guard armory”, etcetera).
Then I will have to ask you again: by what mechanism do you feel the prefatory clause is restrictive? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions and inferences that, as far as I know, are not actually backed up by case law.
Again, I think you fail to understand the decision in Miller. The Miller court did state in their decision that the Second Amendment was intended to “render possible the effectiveness of [a militia]”, but what they did not do (a fact that you seem to be conveniently ignoring) was decide that because of that intent, the Second Amendment protection did not in fact apply to regular citizens not associated with a “well-regulated militia.” Had they done that, there would be no new issue in D.C. v. Heller.
Of course the Supreme Court is capable of making a wrong decision-the question is, do you attempt to change the decision by using whatever legal means are available to you, or do you abandon the rule of law and take up arms?
You know where I stand. That was aimed at Elvis, who is making an argument based upon a default judgment from 70 years ago.
Sorry, my question wasn’t aimed at you, because you’ve always been a straight shooter(pun semi-unintended). I’m just wondering if there are others who will argue law as long as law is with them, then obey another “law” when it isn’t.
To be honest, I will. It’s illegal to smoke pot, something I really enjoy and that doesn’t have a real negative effect on me. But I don’t, not because it’s illegal, but it could cost me my job. And that would suck. Retirement is coming, though.
But yes, I will follow firearm laws.
So what would be the result if the Supreme Court upheld the lower ruling? My guess is not all that much actually. Some federal laws such as the one forbidding further manufacture or importation of automatic firearms might be struck down. Explosive ordinance would be covered under laws governing any type of explosive. As far as handguns go, my best guess is that the practical effect would be to make “shall issue” the nationwide standard. There would still be laws requiring gun registration, carry permit standards, laws banning firearms from reasonable venues (courthouses, etc.). Perhaps it would simply lead to all the clandestine firearms people have under their beds and in their closets being legitimized. No one (I hope) is claiming that recognizing the 2nd as a personal right would lead to armed anarchy. The main effect of such a ruling would be political: it would stymie efforts to remove guns from society.
I agree. The lower court ruling was far from a declaration that every citizen can carry an M-16 into their child’s school. I think that even under the lower court’s ruling, the only laws that would be struck down would be those outright bans like D.C.'s, Chicago’s (and outying areas) handgun bans, bans on registration of new full-autos and state laws thereof.
I think the lower court ruled pretty conclusively that things like CCW permits, even the non-issue of them, was legit, as was gun registration, prohibition on locations of carry, etc. While the Supremes could overrule that, and they might if we had a 5th Thomscalroblito on there, but I think that there will be 4 votes to stand with D.C., 4 to overturn, and Kennedy writing the majority opinion that upholds the lower court, with the restrictions…
Which line is that? The line between arms and ordnance? As I suspected, you continue to ignore any point that isn’t your own. Please pay attention - The line has been drawn, you’ve ignored it in favor of condescension, and until you actually come up with something more than “the National Guard is the Militia”, I see no reason to argue with poorly phrased platitudes.
If you can actually present a point, I will be happy to discuss it with you. As I asked earlier, do you have some reason to be harping on this? Please make your point. I answered your question, now do me the same courtesy.
I thought the line, between arms and ordnance if you wish, was still a little vague somewhere between full auto .50’s and briefcase nukes. 
Actually, I can’t find the post that decides this question.
Peace,
mangeorge
I recall it centered around whether a weapon was area effect or whether it narrowly targeted one person in a controlled way.
If one could, somehow, pack a nuclear device into a bullet, the gun that fired it would be a small arm, yes.
“Briefcase Nukes”, which were somewhat larger than that, count as explosives, not arms. The closest I could come would be the Davy Crockett.
A recoilless rifle is a Light Weapon, not a Small Arm. Two or more individuals to carry or operate, bigger than .50, bigger than 20mm.
So no full-auto, grenades, or mortars.
This was mentioned on Washington Week last night. Synopsis: Wait and see.
I didn’t realize that both sides want the ruling.