"... because the Supreme Court upheld Miller's conviction ..."
IIRC, Miller was not convicted. The trial judge had tossed the case before trial as an unconstitutional "law". The case was remanded for further procedings which did not, in fact, occur.
We shouldn't ever let them get away with saying there was a conviction involved. If the case had been tried, it quite possibly could have ended up back in the S.C. along with the needed "evidence" that the firearm in question was indeed useful for militia duty.
Why do weapon ban supporters seem to always bring up the ownership of HE and nukes? OTOH, I fullyu believe that the bloody amendment, DOES cover such items. I don't care if you are talking about cannons, explosives, 'machine guns' or even nukes.
However, not only are such items prohibitively expensive, but the safety precautions necessary to keep them in a safe manner are also prohibitively expensive. Can you just imagine the insurance premium on a liability policy for a nuke? Did I mention that as a private citizen you would be liable for whatever damage improper storage or use of such weapons caused? Quite unlike the .gov who can decide that it is not liable because it controls the courts.
This is likely your best work yet, Kevin. I'm reminded of a statement by Winston Churchill:
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time -- a tremendous whack.
I suggest, quite seriously, that you make sure a copy gets to whoever represents our side when the Parker appeal gets to the Supreme Court. The Court itself needs to get "a tremendous whack".
cabinboy, you can find it quoted in lots of places. Try using Google and searching for this exact term:
"a pile driver" Churchill
I found it originally in The Great American Bathroom Book I," ISBN 188018404-4, which is a tome for those who prefer to do their duty in a somewhat educational manner.
"Morning all, I hereby declare the BC website blogospere as ours, without a shot fired. Email your pro-2A friends and family and get them to visit this site every day and post the truth.
I’ve read thru the 75 page ruling, twice, it’s truly a thing of beauty.
A note to Paul, this is our website now, you are no longer welcome here.
But before you go, I would like to meet you and make a sexy time with your nostrils. "
Wonderful work as always, but I would like to add one thing: Everyone goes back to Miller. Everyone goes back 70 some years. Why?
The anti's need to face the truth: The (laughably ridiculous) 'collective rights' reading of the 2nd amendment flies boldly in the face of FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of American history of private gun ownership and use; i.e. since Jamestown; since the very beginning!
Why doesn't the 2nd mention self defense? Because that right was taken for granted! (They didn't even have police.)
Why doesn't the 2nd mention hunting? Because that right was taken for granted! (particularly for landowners) Then: You want meat for dinner? You went out and shot something. The idea of having to protect that right was thought no more necessary than guaranteeing your right to breathe the air or drink the water.
I'm going to print out a copy of this and use it on my liberal history professor. Probably best online synopsis of the various important 2A court cases I have read.
All men by their essential nature have the right to defend themselves and their property from harm or oppression, be it by other individuals, or by the state; through whatever me...
Blog name: The AnarchAngel
An excellent analysis, Kevin. Just two points you forgot to mention:
1) Cruikshank and Presser were both decided in a time when the Supreme Court did not yet have the "incorporation doctrine," the interpretation by which the Bill of Rights was extended through the 14th Amendment so that it applied to state and local laws too. If you combine the language in Cruikshank with the incorporation doctrine, it becomes clear that many antigun laws are unconstitutional.
2) one of the most telling parts of US v. Miller (1934) is the Court's analysis of Revolutionary-era Militia Acts passed in various states. Those Acts typically said that all able-bodied men were members of the militia, and required -- not suggested or advised, but required -- that they arm themselves using their own money.
On point 1, SCOTUS has had several chances to hear cases on the Second Amendment and incorporate the right to arms under the 14th, and they have dodged every case. Miller came in 1939, and the Court could have easily found (as the District Court found) that the right was individual and incorporated. They're the Supreme Court.
Instead, they dodged a bullet (pun intended) and ruled as narrowly as they could so that they could keep an unsavory character - and those like him - disarmed.
Except they can't. Regulating sawed-off shotguns? It takes a hacksaw, not a $200 tax stamp.
As to part 2, read the fisk directly above this one.
>>Did we surrender our natural rights when we formed the United States? This is Professor Saul Cornell's rather interesting position. I don't think so.
People's ignorance of Locke v Rousseau rears its ugly head again, and again, and again.
I wish the Founders would have bitch slapped him, and saved successive generations the trouble of dealing with Rousseau's twisted children.
We would be way, way ahead in the game if people quite putting all those extra commas in the 2nd amendment. That includes the NRA,too. There is only one comma and it is after the word state. That is the original and written like that, no even slightly educated person can read it wrong.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/03/working-hard-to-deliberately-mislead.html (18 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"... because the Supreme Court upheld Miller's conviction ..."
IIRC, Miller was not convicted. The trial judge had tossed the case before trial as an unconstitutional "law". The case was remanded for further procedings which did not, in fact, occur.
We shouldn't ever let them get away with saying there was a conviction involved. If the case had been tried, it quite possibly could have ended up back in the S.C. along with the needed "evidence" that the firearm in question was indeed useful for militia duty.
Bob, you're right. I knew that, and overlooked it. I'll fix it.
Why do weapon ban supporters seem to always bring up the ownership of HE and nukes? OTOH, I fullyu believe that the bloody amendment, DOES cover such items. I don't care if you are talking about cannons, explosives, 'machine guns' or even nukes.
However, not only are such items prohibitively expensive, but the safety precautions necessary to keep them in a safe manner are also prohibitively expensive. Can you just imagine the insurance premium on a liability policy for a nuke? Did I mention that as a private citizen you would be liable for whatever damage improper storage or use of such weapons caused? Quite unlike the .gov who can decide that it is not liable because it controls the courts.
I'm just saying.
This is likely your best work yet, Kevin. I'm reminded of a statement by Winston Churchill:
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time -- a tremendous whack.
I suggest, quite seriously, that you make sure a copy gets to whoever represents our side when the Parker appeal gets to the Supreme Court. The Court itself needs to get "a tremendous whack".
Excellent, KB.
DJ, got a source for the WSC quote? I love it.
The heart of the matter:
The Bradyite twisting of the unholy trinity of the Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller cases.
cabinboy, you can find it quoted in lots of places. Try using Google and searching for this exact term:
"a pile driver" Churchill
I found it originally in The Great American Bathroom Book I," ISBN 188018404-4, which is a tome for those who prefer to do their duty in a somewhat educational manner.
The best comment is #34
"Morning all, I hereby declare the BC website blogospere as ours, without a shot fired. Email your pro-2A friends and family and get them to visit this site every day and post the truth.
I’ve read thru the 75 page ruling, twice, it’s truly a thing of beauty.
A note to Paul, this is our website now, you are no longer welcome here.
But before you go, I would like to meet you and make a sexy time with your nostrils. "
KEYBOARD ALERT!!!!
Damn, that was funny!
Wonderful work as always, but I would like to add one thing: Everyone goes back to Miller. Everyone goes back 70 some years. Why?
The anti's need to face the truth: The (laughably ridiculous) 'collective rights' reading of the 2nd amendment flies boldly in the face of FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of American history of private gun ownership and use; i.e. since Jamestown; since the very beginning!
Why doesn't the 2nd mention self defense? Because that right was taken for granted! (They didn't even have police.)
Why doesn't the 2nd mention hunting? Because that right was taken for granted! (particularly for landowners) Then: You want meat for dinner? You went out and shot something. The idea of having to protect that right was thought no more necessary than guaranteeing your right to breathe the air or drink the water.
I'm going to print out a copy of this and use it on my liberal history professor. Probably best online synopsis of the various important 2A court cases I have read.
Dan:
Be sure to let me know how that goes.
Trackback message
Title: On the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Excerpt: The second amendment has a very clear, and very important purpose:
All men by their essential nature have the right to defend themselves and their property from harm or oppression, be it by other individuals, or by the state; through whatever me...
Blog name: The AnarchAngel
Whooooeee! That boy sure can throw a smokescreen.
Dontcha just love his crocodile tears for "the militia tradition"? Oh, I bet he cares so damn much about America's 'militia tradition'.
An excellent analysis, Kevin. Just two points you forgot to mention:
1) Cruikshank and Presser were both decided in a time when the Supreme Court did not yet have the "incorporation doctrine," the interpretation by which the Bill of Rights was extended through the 14th Amendment so that it applied to state and local laws too. If you combine the language in Cruikshank with the incorporation doctrine, it becomes clear that many antigun laws are unconstitutional.
2) one of the most telling parts of US v. Miller (1934) is the Court's analysis of Revolutionary-era Militia Acts passed in various states. Those Acts typically said that all able-bodied men were members of the militia, and required -- not suggested or advised, but required -- that they arm themselves using their own money.
Wolfwalker:
On point 1, SCOTUS has had several chances to hear cases on the Second Amendment and incorporate the right to arms under the 14th, and they have dodged every case. Miller came in 1939, and the Court could have easily found (as the District Court found) that the right was individual and incorporated. They're the Supreme Court.
Instead, they dodged a bullet (pun intended) and ruled as narrowly as they could so that they could keep an unsavory character - and those like him - disarmed.
Except they can't. Regulating sawed-off shotguns? It takes a hacksaw, not a $200 tax stamp.
As to part 2, read the fisk directly above this one.
Thanks for speaking up, though.
>>Did we surrender our natural rights when we formed the United States? This is Professor Saul Cornell's rather interesting position. I don't think so.
People's ignorance of Locke v Rousseau rears its ugly head again, and again, and again.
I wish the Founders would have bitch slapped him, and saved successive generations the trouble of dealing with Rousseau's twisted children.
We would be way, way ahead in the game if people quite putting all those extra commas in the 2nd amendment. That includes the NRA,too. There is only one comma and it is after the word state. That is the original and written like that, no even slightly educated person can read it wrong.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>