Switch to full style
Current and Upcoming Legislation. Local, State and Federal.

Forum rules

Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
Post a reply

Miller + Heller could spell doom

Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:02 am

https://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/hold-your-horses-critical-thinking-is-hard/

In Heller v DC, the Court’s decision refers to Miller, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said…”

In other words, my very non-attorney comprehension of this concludes that, the Court sees this issue as something akin to, “Sure, bring us a case that involves semi-auto only rifles, like AR15s and AK47s, and watch how fast we uphold every ban on them brought to us, setting precedent for further bans…”


The point of all this, of course, is not that I personally feel the Court was correct, in either Miller or Heller. Ultimately, the point is, I don’t give a shit what the Court says. I have to live my own life, in accordance with my own family and tribal cultural values, and when those values contradict the law, as handed down from on high, by the Court, I have to decide which is more important to me.

So do you.



I truly believe the thing which scares many in our governments the most is the thought that enough citizens will realize not just how much we dont actually need their involvement in everything; but also how much better off we would all be without it.

Re: Miller + Heller could spell doom

Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:04 am

In Heller v DC, the Court’s decision refers to Miller, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said…

That's funny, I don't see the Court saying that "it is particularly wrongheaded to read the Second Amendment for more than what it said."

I think every judge at every level of every court who has opined that restrictions on certain types of weapons is not inconsistent with the 2A knows that position is not in keeping with either the language or the spirit of the 2A, but they take it anyway because, at the end of the day, they don't trust their fellow citizens with Liberty.

Re: Miller + Heller could spell doom

Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:19 am

Guns4Liberty wrote:
In Heller v DC, the Court’s decision refers to Miller, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said…

That's funny, I don't see the Court saying that "it is particularly wrongheaded to read the Second Amendment for more than what it said."

I think every judge at every level of every court who has opined that restrictions on certain types of weapons is not inconsistent with the 2A knows that position is not in keeping with either the language or the spirit of the 2A, but they take it anyway because, at the end of the day, they don't trust their fellow citizens with Liberty.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
I misread your comment G4L.

Good point.

Re: Miller + Heller could spell doom

Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:50 am

It is totally incompetent or purposefully inconsistent and ignoring the express language in the 2A to place restrictions on firearms.

The terms couldn't be more clear when written in black and white, "...shall not be infringed."

It really isn't difficult to understand, but has only gotten muddy due to the purposeful twisting of language by anti-gun lawyers and judges who plainly do not even understand how guns work. I've read many court opinions on gun laws and they are simply absurd in their incorrect understandings.

All these waiting periods, mag bans, and design bans are simply infringements. We can go down the path of "reasonable infringements..." Okay, fine. We have for 80 years allowed more and more infringements.

It turns out that the VERY thing that makes guns effective and dangerous are the VERY thing that makes them useful for a militia and expressly protected. The forefathers CLEARLY wanted our individual rights to own effective guns in order to form a militia. Any laws restricting that are expressly illegal.

Only the most dishonest or anti-gun zealot can see it otherwise.

Re: Miller + Heller could spell doom

Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:23 pm

leadcounsel wrote:
It turns out that the VERY thing that makes guns effective and dangerous are the VERY thing that makes them useful for a militia and expressly protected. The forefathers CLEARLY wanted our individual rights to own effective guns in order to form a militia. Any laws restricting that are expressly illegal.

Only the most dishonest or anti-gun zealot can see it otherwise.



It's fun that articulate it as such. In many of my conversations with anti 2A people, I boil down their arguments to being against efficiency. Then, they have to wrangle the idea that the more efficient something is at it's job, the better it is. That really goes against their grain.
Post a reply