This probably will end up being somewhat anti-climactic. The supreme court will try to make their ruling as narrow as possible. If DC is ruled against, we won't be getting "You know what, the 2nd amendment really does apply. Throw out the NFA!".
It will be interesting to see though.
Here's hoping for the best.
"Though the Supreme Court discussed the Second Amendment in a 1939 gun case, the court has never definitively ruled on if the amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun or if it only protects a right of state militias to resist being disarmed by the national government."
This was obviously writter by one who has never actually read "Miller" and sounds like some of the crapola espoused by the Bradys and their ilk.
The criticism was of the original MSNBC article, not any poster here, and that is what I quoted.
I did not and have not intended to bash or denigrate any poster here but, as I said, the criticism was of the author of the original article quoted here, and not of the poster who provided it.
for the "handshake".
I appreciate the camaraderie and sincerity of your reply.
<Hand Shaking> Thank you for the clarification... my most sincere apologies for misinterpreting your posts, shortcoming of electronic communications media, I guess.
US v Miller
Here is the main line of reasoning that shows what the Court actually said in U.S. v. Miller(1939)... and how it doesn't mean diddly.
The Court was quite sneaky and devious in its wording with this non-ruling. Look at this: The Court said, "WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS." So, let's look at "WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW ..." What does that tell you? It tells you that the Court didn't say that the conclusion of the court below was wrong, the Court said because there was no evidence presented, it cannot accept the conclusion. They said in the beginning that "In the absence of any evidence....we cannot say...". Then the Court continued with, "..AND THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. When ever the Court reverses a lower court ruling, it does not include anything like "...must be...". The Court did not reverse or vacate the judgment of the lower court. The Court didn't say the judgment IS reversed or vacated. "THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS." The Court instructed the lower court to proceed further on the case, presumably, to have the needed evidence presented to support the lower court's conclusion that the NFA is unconstitutional by showing that the sawed-off shotgun is a viable weapon for the militia. Sadly, Miller had been murdered before the case had been concluded, and Layton(Miller's co-defendant) accepted a plea. There was no one left to continue the case. Don't forget, however, that this, for all intents and purposes, is moot in the light of the Second Amendment.
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
doublenutz said:Interesting position. However, I am curious- Are you presenting this as THEORY or FACT?
If factual- is it based on your interpretive experiences in the environment or an academic prowess.
I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things - just as numbers have value and you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math.