Does the recent US Border Patrol's request for pricing and information for the purchase of 16" barrel length shotguns invalidate the Court's findings underpinning the Miller case regarding suitability for militia use?
Clearly.
As far back as 1934, the laws infringing on firearms ownership by "We the People" are unconstitutional.
Draven, I didn't "forget" the Sullivan law. The truly sad thing is, I left a LOT out. The piece ran 13,000 words, and I could have easily doubled that.
I'd love to see you double it sometime! The fact that you provide excellent research and context around the issues makes it very hard for the opposition to refute what you provide...not that they don't try anyway, but it's hard to argue with facts. Thanks, Kevin-it was a great read!
Good analysis. One thing that can be read from this analysis is that, after all the attempts to write down all these high falutin' words to keep government in due bounds, we in the end are not ruled by laws, but by men. When men are determined to reach a given result, a piece of parchment will not stop them.
So it is good that we have a few friends on the Court. At least we will not lose this fight without a dissenting opinion. Sigh.
Trackback message
Title: The state of RKBA in a nutshell
Excerpt: The Full History and True Meaing of the Second Amendment, along with the Evolution of Gun Control Law through the ages Kevin over at the Smallest Minority posts a whopper of an essay; Of Law And Sausages is a 13,000 word read worthy of Bill Whittle and...
Blog name: Barking Moonbat Early Warning System
Outstanding essay, and a great way to spend an entire hour (I'm not a speed reader). You took it from the very beginning and the real Original Intent and showed step by step how the path was bent.
I'm praying for a correct and bold decision on Heller, which would overturn ALL of these wrong headed activist decisions.
Since you asked about Miller and the appeals process back then. The Circuit Court of Appeals were not as well established as today, so it was not uncommon for a District Court decision to be appealed to SCotUS. I believe this was the practice for a challenge on constitutional grounds (whereas the Appellate circuits handled 'lesser' matters). However, there do appear to be some quirks with the appeal - not least of, and most famously - Miller was not represented. Contrast THAT with the amici in Heller!
This is an excellent link from Dave Hardy's site on Miller.
Kevin, a very well written, passionate, factual and logical piece. It also has a great width of vision-a broad perspective with examinations of every conceivable angle.
Remember, intelligence (this piece being a shining example) is defined as the capacity for goal-directed adaptive behavior. It involves the ability to profit from experience, solve problems and reason effectively. Any chance you could use this as a model for other views of yours....say...Iraq? Islam? Universal Health Care? Climate Change?
Remember, intelligence (this piece being a shining example) is defined as the capacity for goal-directed adaptive behavior. It involves the ability to profit from experience, solve problems and reason effectively. Any chance you could use this as a model for other views of yours....say...Iraq? Islam? Universal Health Care? Climate Change?
I don't: He doesn't possess sufficient intelligence to realize he doesn't possess sufficient intelligence.
And I agree: you have. In spades.
Nice essay. Thanks.
Another strange thing was that Miller & Layton originally planned to plead guilty and the Federal District Judge rejected their pleas and appointed counsel (pre Gideon no less!) and basically advised them to challenge the indictment. Can you imagine the howls if a Federal judge did that today?
The demurrer challenged the indictment on multiple grounds. The judge ruled only on the defense based on the 2nd. Probably the strongest challenge was that the gun, although it crossed state lines, was never tied in any way to interstate commerce. Thus the exercise of a criminal indictment for failing to pay the tax was in fact not a 'revenue matter', but was an exercise of police power. This would later come back to haunt the govt in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory.
The 2nd Amdt jurisprudence in this country is going to get very interesting.
The 'collective rights' argument is so close to being a centerpiece for the difference between Liberal and Conservative thought, and may be used to illustrate the matter with Universal Health Care as well.
Many conservatives feel that self-defense begins with ourselves, and the government is just there to handle the legal matters.
Many Liberals feel that we don't need to be able to defend ourselves, that the Government is there to do it.
Likewise with health care...
Many conservatives feel that health care- 'health insurance'- is an individual matter and we should handle it ourselves.
Many Liberals feel that health care is a collective matter, and the government should take care of it so we don't have to.
Are you seeing the parallels? I can go on and use other examples....
Even worse, many on the left feel that we not only shouldn't have to defend ourselves, provide for our own health care, etc, but that we should not be allowed to defend ourselves, choose our own standard of care (or lack of)etc.
Better a few peasants die due to submitting to goblins, or waiting for the .gov to work them into the treatment schedule than to give them the idea that they might not need to .gov to accomplish these things.
Did you catch Laurence Tribe in the WSJ this morning? He's down to pleading with Justice Roberts to exercise "judicial modesty" and craft a narrow ruling.
With respect to Heller, at least, they're going to lose and they know it; the focus now is on not losing badly.
Kevin, as I said in a response to another post, this composition/compilation is amazing, and even Markadelphia agrees that it's premise is virtually irrefutable.
So, as I said then, and others have said here in other words, it needs to be seen outside the choir circle.
I wonder if Markadelphia might, with your okay, post it directly to his own blog? I don't think he gets a lot of readership, but it might well lead to posting and discussion among others of his ummm, train of thought.
And that could only be good. For everyone. May God guide the minds and decisions of the Justices in this case, and in the many contentious decisions to come.
"The extinction of the right to arms was almost complete. The meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution was altered without the use of the Amendment process - merely by the repeated death-by-a-thousand-cuts judicial re-interpretation, and the power of stare decisis.
But the job was not quite complete."
"One by one the Free lands of Middle earth fell to the power of the ring.
Kevin, very well written and researched. I would suggest that those interested in the SCOTUS approaches to the Constitution read Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America". It is a bit dry for non lawyers (if you liked what Kevin wrote above, you can probably tolerate it) but an excellent history of how we got to where we are today with the SCOTUS twisting the meaning of words to arrive at the preferred conclusion of the Court's majority. Remember, anytime someone tells you that the Constitution is a living breathing document, simply ask them "Then why do we have an amendment process?" If their heads don't explode, sit back and enjoy their puzzled expression, as there is no logical response.
As to law and sausage; though my 'duly elected reps' happily tell me not to worry 'bout legislative activities, I damn well demand to know the ingredients of both items. May have something to do with general refusal by my reps to answer my phone calls.
NEWS TIP! ANOTHER GOP SEX SCANDAL! CLINTONS! SEX DRUGS POLITICS!
"the Paul Helmke I know" and i'm telling you all this for free( & "15 minutes" of fame)
http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-helmke-adulterer-white-collar.html
HTTP://X-WIRE.BLOGSPOT.COM/2008/03/PAUL-HELMKE-ADULTERER-WHITE-COLLAR.HTML
e-book autobiography:
http://fwnextweb1.fortwayne.com/ns/projects/helmke/index.php
google "paul helmke"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=paul+helmke+&btnG=Search
the brady center/campaign guy- wants to take away your guns
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paul+helmke+and+brady+center
yea! that guy. a nice sized fish to skewer
i'm not a spammer. i'm a whistleblower. i'm seeking justice. I'm a citizen activist, who cleaned up a city of illegal gambling. (I deserve a police medal/citation, really)I have a true story to tell- relevant, timely- given all the other politicians going down like dominos.(or ON "Dominos"?)( 007-thunderball)
e-mail me back with any questions, or post to my blog.
thank you.
david c roach
x-wire publishing
dcroach@yahoo.com
http://x-wire.blogspot.com
http://dcroach.blogspot.com
http://rollcall.com/images_rollcall_acm/elephants032408.jpg
viral video mash-up humor at Helmkes expense-forward these! ctrl-a /ctrl x /ctrl v. done!
scroll down- pearl, the landlord wants your guns
http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2008/03/zoinks-shaggy-scooby-doo-where-are-you.html
diy mashup- helmke sings w/ Strawman (buyer) from OZ-funny!
http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2007/10/paul-helmke-sings-if-i-only-had.html
I thought HaloScan limited the number of links in a comment?
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/2008/03/of-laws-and-sausages.html (45 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Excellent piece of analysis.
And if I may, I'll add this question:
Does the recent US Border Patrol's request for pricing and information for the purchase of 16" barrel length shotguns invalidate the Court's findings underpinning the Miller case regarding suitability for militia use?
Clearly.
As far back as 1934, the laws infringing on firearms ownership by "We the People" are unconstitutional.
US, you forgot the Sullivan laws in NYC.
Draven, I didn't "forget" the Sullivan law. The truly sad thing is, I left a LOT out. The piece ran 13,000 words, and I could have easily doubled that.
(Edited out the one-too-many zeros! - Ed.)
I'd love to see you double it sometime! The fact that you provide excellent research and context around the issues makes it very hard for the opposition to refute what you provide...not that they don't try anyway, but it's hard to argue with facts. Thanks, Kevin-it was a great read!
13,0000 words?
(13,010 I think. - Ed. Damn. Missed the decimal point!)
Kevin,
Good analysis. One thing that can be read from this analysis is that, after all the attempts to write down all these high falutin' words to keep government in due bounds, we in the end are not ruled by laws, but by men. When men are determined to reach a given result, a piece of parchment will not stop them.
So it is good that we have a few friends on the Court. At least we will not lose this fight without a dissenting opinion. Sigh.
PolyKahr
Trackback message
Title: The state of RKBA in a nutshell
Excerpt: The Full History and True Meaing of the Second Amendment, along with the Evolution of Gun Control Law through the ages Kevin over at the Smallest Minority posts a whopper of an essay; Of Law And Sausages is a 13,000 word read worthy of Bill Whittle and...
Blog name: Barking Moonbat Early Warning System
Magnificent. Spectacular, even. This is the go-to post for a quick, digestible history of the 2nd in the courts.
Thank you very, very much.
("Quick"?? - Ed.)
(Oh, and you're welcome!)
Seriously, thank you for continuing to write these essays.
(You're welcome. - Ed.)
It looks like there's going to be a flood of reviews like this.
Here's an outstanding and very balanced summary of the issues in Heller, as put forth by the various briefs in the case.
Via Dave Hardy at Of Arms and the Law.
What a dreadful shame it is that this post is not a brief before the Court in the Heller case.
Um, although I absolutely concur with DJ this should have been a brief, I should clarify that we are not the same person.
"Quick", yes.
I was in the process of pulling something like this together myself; compared to digging through the sources myself, this was a breeze.
As you say, it could easily have been twice the length, or even a book.
Outstanding essay, and a great way to spend an entire hour (I'm not a speed reader). You took it from the very beginning and the real Original Intent and showed step by step how the path was bent.
I'm praying for a correct and bold decision on Heller, which would overturn ALL of these wrong headed activist decisions.
Kevin,
You should write a book.
Seriously.
Please write a book, your scholarship needs to be seen by more than just us.
Regards,
Who besides "us" would read it?
But thanks!
I second the motion about the book.
You have more than enough information already just in this one post :)
Books travel places that blogs don't, I think you'd reach a wider audience than you'd expect.
Plus think of all the book tours and talk shows you can go on!
Uh, yeah...
Ask Clayton Cramer about his For Defense of Themselves and the State "book tour"! :lol:
Kevin,
USCitizen said "As far back as 1934, the laws infringing on firearms ownership by "We the People" are unconstitutional."
That's what I meant by missing the Sullivan Act.
Bookmarked.
Ah, sorry. My mistake.
Fantastic piece of work sir.
Since you asked about Miller and the appeals process back then. The Circuit Court of Appeals were not as well established as today, so it was not uncommon for a District Court decision to be appealed to SCotUS. I believe this was the practice for a challenge on constitutional grounds (whereas the Appellate circuits handled 'lesser' matters). However, there do appear to be some quirks with the appeal - not least of, and most famously - Miller was not represented. Contrast THAT with the amici in Heller!
This is an excellent link from Dave Hardy's site on Miller.
Thank you for that bit of historical info. What about the speed of the Miller hearing? What, they had nothing better to do?
[...] How did it come to this? [...]
Maybe not a book , but certainly one helluva good pamphlet!
Kevin, a very well written, passionate, factual and logical piece. It also has a great width of vision-a broad perspective with examinations of every conceivable angle.
Remember, intelligence (this piece being a shining example) is defined as the capacity for goal-directed adaptive behavior. It involves the ability to profit from experience, solve problems and reason effectively. Any chance you could use this as a model for other views of yours....say...Iraq? Islam? Universal Health Care? Climate Change?
Remember, intelligence (this piece being a shining example) is defined as the capacity for goal-directed adaptive behavior. It involves the ability to profit from experience, solve problems and reason effectively. Any chance you could use this as a model for other views of yours....say...Iraq? Islam? Universal Health Care? Climate Change?
But Mark, you don't seem to understand. I HAVE.
I keep wondering what's wrong with you. ;)
"But Mark, you don't seem to understand. I HAVE.
I keep wondering what's wrong with you."
I don't: He doesn't possess sufficient intelligence to realize he doesn't possess sufficient intelligence.
And I agree: you have. In spades.
Nice essay. Thanks.
What about the speed of the Miller hearing?
That would be one of the quirks.
Another strange thing was that Miller & Layton originally planned to plead guilty and the Federal District Judge rejected their pleas and appointed counsel (pre Gideon no less!) and basically advised them to challenge the indictment. Can you imagine the howls if a Federal judge did that today?
The demurrer challenged the indictment on multiple grounds. The judge ruled only on the defense based on the 2nd. Probably the strongest challenge was that the gun, although it crossed state lines, was never tied in any way to interstate commerce. Thus the exercise of a criminal indictment for failing to pay the tax was in fact not a 'revenue matter', but was an exercise of police power. This would later come back to haunt the govt in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory.
The 2nd Amdt jurisprudence in this country is going to get very interesting.
The 'collective rights' argument is so close to being a centerpiece for the difference between Liberal and Conservative thought, and may be used to illustrate the matter with Universal Health Care as well.
Many conservatives feel that self-defense begins with ourselves, and the government is just there to handle the legal matters.
Many Liberals feel that we don't need to be able to defend ourselves, that the Government is there to do it.
Likewise with health care...
Many conservatives feel that health care- 'health insurance'- is an individual matter and we should handle it ourselves.
Many Liberals feel that health care is a collective matter, and the government should take care of it so we don't have to.
Are you seeing the parallels? I can go on and use other examples....
Even worse, many on the left feel that we not only shouldn't have to defend ourselves, provide for our own health care, etc, but that we should not be allowed to defend ourselves, choose our own standard of care (or lack of)etc.
Better a few peasants die due to submitting to goblins, or waiting for the .gov to work them into the treatment schedule than to give them the idea that they might not need to .gov to accomplish these things.
Thank you for putting this together, it's a brilliant essay. I've saved a copy and will be forwarding it on to others.
Did you catch Laurence Tribe in the WSJ this morning? He's down to pleading with Justice Roberts to exercise "judicial modesty" and craft a narrow ruling.
With respect to Heller, at least, they're going to lose and they know it; the focus now is on not losing badly.
Kevin, as I said in a response to another post, this composition/compilation is amazing, and even Markadelphia agrees that it's premise is virtually irrefutable.
So, as I said then, and others have said here in other words, it needs to be seen outside the choir circle.
I wonder if Markadelphia might, with your okay, post it directly to his own blog? I don't think he gets a lot of readership, but it might well lead to posting and discussion among others of his ummm, train of thought.
And that could only be good. For everyone. May God guide the minds and decisions of the Justices in this case, and in the many contentious decisions to come.
Al Terego
Wonderful!
"The extinction of the right to arms was almost complete. The meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution was altered without the use of the Amendment process - merely by the repeated death-by-a-thousand-cuts judicial re-interpretation, and the power of stare decisis.
But the job was not quite complete."
"One by one the Free lands of Middle earth fell to the power of the ring.
But there were some...who resisted."
Kevin, very well written and researched. I would suggest that those interested in the SCOTUS approaches to the Constitution read Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America". It is a bit dry for non lawyers (if you liked what Kevin wrote above, you can probably tolerate it) but an excellent history of how we got to where we are today with the SCOTUS twisting the meaning of words to arrive at the preferred conclusion of the Court's majority. Remember, anytime someone tells you that the Constitution is a living breathing document, simply ask them "Then why do we have an amendment process?" If their heads don't explode, sit back and enjoy their puzzled expression, as there is no logical response.
Great piece! I enjoy your essays regardless of the length, and as one of your 16 I feel duty bound to pass this along!
Please do, just make sure you include attribution and a hyperlink!
Excellent! Thank you!
Well done!
Well done!
An excellent read and one that I have forwarded out (especially to the non gun owners)
Thank you!
As to law and sausage; though my 'duly elected reps' happily tell me not to worry 'bout legislative activities, I damn well demand to know the ingredients of both items. May have something to do with general refusal by my reps to answer my phone calls.
Well written piece, thank you.
NEWS TIP! ANOTHER GOP SEX SCANDAL! CLINTONS! SEX DRUGS POLITICS!
"the Paul Helmke I know" and i'm telling you all this for free( & "15 minutes" of fame)
http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-helmke-adulterer-white-collar.html
HTTP://X-WIRE.BLOGSPOT.COM/2008/03/PAUL-HELMKE-ADULTERER-WHITE-COLLAR.HTML
e-book autobiography:
http://fwnextweb1.fortwayne.com/ns/projects/helmke/index.php
google "paul helmke"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=paul+helmke+&btnG=Search
the brady center/campaign guy- wants to take away your guns
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paul+helmke+and+brady+center
yea! that guy. a nice sized fish to skewer
i'm not a spammer. i'm a whistleblower. i'm seeking justice. I'm a citizen activist, who cleaned up a city of illegal gambling. (I deserve a police medal/citation, really)I have a true story to tell- relevant, timely- given all the other politicians going down like dominos.(or ON "Dominos"?)( 007-thunderball)
e-mail me back with any questions, or post to my blog.
thank you.
david c roach
x-wire publishing
dcroach@yahoo.com
http://x-wire.blogspot.com
http://dcroach.blogspot.com
http://rollcall.com/images_rollcall_acm/elephants032408.jpg
viral video mash-up humor at Helmkes expense-forward these! ctrl-a /ctrl x /ctrl v. done!
scroll down- pearl, the landlord wants your guns
http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2008/03/zoinks-shaggy-scooby-doo-where-are-you.html
diy mashup- helmke sings w/ Strawman (buyer) from OZ-funny!
http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2007/10/paul-helmke-sings-if-i-only-had.html
I thought HaloScan limited the number of links in a comment?
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>