Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:02 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…”
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.
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…”
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.
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:50 am
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.