TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

by Carl F. Worden
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melvin

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

by Carl F. Worden
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

---

If this is the case why can't i manufacture a full auto and sell it to you? Today.........

Ask Carl F. Worden why the Miller case was not used as precedence against the first AWB.

Wasn't Miller brutally murdered before the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polski

Ask Carl F. Worden why the Miller case was not used as precedence against the first AWB.

---

The Brady Bill was never challenged in the Supreme Court.

You cannot manufacture and sell firearms at will due to current laws also not challenged in the Supreme Court.

Courts change. As they change, the rulings change. There are a lot of reasons for SCOTUS to change the way they rule on cases, the most important being the members. The next would be the politics of the time. A prime example of this is the events leading to and resulting from the Miranda case. Right's advisements went from non-existant to required to a part of the 5th amendment. It took over 30 years for that all to happen, and if the Miranda ruling would have been challenged to the level of SCOTUS immediately after the initial ruling, the warnings would have died a swift and painless death. After 20+ years of their existence, SCOTUS determined it would do no harm to leave them in place, but cause harm to overrule the original case. This was all hashed out in Dickerson v. U.S. in 2000. So, in a nutshell, the politics involved in the decision and the change in Judges over that 30 year span made all the difference in the decision of the case.

The Miller decision, although fairly clear, is a blunt chisel. It's hardly ever used to determine a case. It was brought up in DC v. Heller, but SCOTUS avoided it like the plague in the ruling. I suspect (as many of us have) SCOTUS has seen this struggle to figure out just where the individual right to own guns was going to happen. I also think they want each individual aspect of it hashed out in court after court as a means to figure out its parameters. They didn't want to take a bite of that pie in the Heller case.

There is WAY more to self defense than the John Bad Elk case. It's not as clearly defined as this post makes out. The arrest was attempted without an arrest warrant and no immediate need to arrest. Basically, the cops thumbed their noses at not being able to get a warrant. Telling any judge "Fuck you" is a good way for them to all take it out on you. The civil rights being addressed were his 4th amendment rights, not his 2nd. At the time, the 2nd wasn't considered an individual right. There is no ruling associating this case to defense of ones 2A rights, and could be easily argued that it doesn't apply in the same manner just as a woman couldn't shoot someone attempting to stop her from voting because she is a woman.

There is a lot of legal support for pro 2A, but getting black-and-white about it when it comes to legal cases is a bad idea and any shooting can be construed as legally terminal.

It came from Wiki, but it does explain US v. Miller pretty well.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Gun control advocates point out that for over six decades the United States Circuit Courts, with very few exceptions, point to the precedence of the Miller case while rejecting legal challenges to federal firearm regulations.Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected. Furthermore, they frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this. Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to know otherwise. Two of the justices involved in the decision had prior military experience, Justice Black as a Captain in the field artillery during WWI and Justice Frankfurter as a Major in the Army legal service; however, there is no way to know if they were personally aware of the use of shotguns by American troops. During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings", which never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.
The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned Miller in only 7 subsequent cases: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010); Heller (2008); Prinz (1997); Lewis (1980); Adams (1972); Atlanta Motel (1961); and Konigsberg (1961). Justice James Clark McReynolds authored the decision in United States v. Miller which was the only Supreme Court case that directly involved the Second Amendment until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.
The Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)"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, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas)Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
Lewis v. United States (1980)(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974);Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall)The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);
Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961)That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . ." But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

Si guess what i am reading is; we can trust the current SCOTUS to overturn any current AWB?? I don't believe the OP...... If that was the case the last one would have never went into place. or am i missing something?

It almost sounds like; citizens would be expected to have an AR, a 9 mm or .45, and turn in everything else.