Alphecca

Folks keep saying that the Miller ruling said the 2nd Amendment only applied to militias, when that's not at all what it said. That case was over a sawed-off shotgun, and the Court said that said firearm was not appropriate for militia use, hence not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

That's starkly different from what some people are saying about that ruling. The Miller Court did not say that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to individuals, and Judge Henderson's reference to it in her dissent yesterday indicates that she is not qualified for her position, because she's either an incompetent fool or an ideologue who puts her agenda above honesty and integrity.

Ahem. Not to put too fine a point on it.

Souter and Ginsburg are pro-rights? That's a shock. I figured our most bankable justices were Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito. If the two of them are on the side of angels, we're in good shape.

So does anyone out there think that the 'outraged' Mayor Adrian Fenty sees the beautiful irony in the fact that 'leaders' like him are exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment?

- What Planet does this Moron Mayor Fenty live on ? - Washington DC is a terrible crime ridden place (I know from experience) and all
the bad guys are armed to the teeth. Its the
innocent resident/visitor who is in danger being
unarmed. This Mayor is either a complete Stupid
fool or he has some kind of hidden agenda he hopes to accomplish some kind of gain ?
When the criminals Know that their intended
victim might be armed it of course is going to
reduce their criminal intent. - Florida's
recent reinterruption of the Castle Doctrine
that created its domain to be Anywhere Has
got criminals to think twice of even threatening
Anyone with a weapon.

I am curious why Fenty will not be prosecuted for conspiracy to enforce and illegal law? It has just been struck down, and he has stated he would enforce it anyway.

Where's his jail time?

Imagine if there was a city or state that interpreted the First Amendment as only granting free speech to members of the press, and only as regarding politics. Everyone would be outraged, even liberals on college campuses. Such a law would have been struck down by the Supreme Court immediately, not thirty years later.

You must know that McCain-Feingold is very much like the hypothetical you describe, and that President Bush signed it probably thinking it would be ruled as plainly constitutional. Oops.

But I hope you're right---I hope the Supremes recognize the right we have, and which pre-dates the Constitution.

I agree with this blog. I would like to point out that Miller did not show up and give his argument. So the decision was based solely on the Government's evidence.

If the GFW's actually think the court may rule against them they will probably decline to appeal.

Regarding the statement, "Folks keep saying that the Miller ruling said the 2nd Amendment only applied to militias, when that's not at all what it said. That case was over a sawed-off shotgun, and the Court said that said firearm was not appropriate for militia use, hence not covered by the 2nd Amendmen". I disagree with the Court's statement that "a sawed off shotgut is not an appropriate for the militia" in that shotguns, long and short, have been and are used in nilitary use. i.e. During WWI they were used as "trench guns" and are presently is use by our military in urban fighting in Iraq. The United States Army ceratinly believes these forearms are appropriate in military use. If the attorneys for Miller had been more knowledgeable of the use that shotguns do play in military use, I believe the Court would ruled in favor of Miller.

Quoting a previous commenter:

"Folks keep saying that the Miller ruling said the 2nd Amendment only applied to militias, when that's not at all what it said. That case was over a sawed-off shotgun, and the Court said that said firearm was not appropriate for militia use, hence not covered by the 2nd Amendment."

The Court didn't even say THAT.

The best explanation of Miller that I have seen is in Alan Korwin's "Supreme Court Gun Cases."

Miller was indicted twice and never even tried, because the local judge threw the case (and therefore the NFA) out both times as an obvious affront to the 2A. The government appealed directly to SCOTUS on the issue of whether or not the judge's condemnation of the NFA would stand. The Court said that the 2A covered all militia-suitable weapons -- but because they had no evidence in hand (and didn't otherwise know outright of their own knowledge) about whether or not a sawed-off was suitable, they would direct the lower court to try the case so that such evidence could be heard.

But Miller was found dead just prior to the ruling, and Layton had already copped a plea, so this trial was never held.

Seen in this light, Miller is actually one of the biggest non-issues in firearms jurisprudence. It is a directive to a lower court to hear evidence... that ended up never being heard! Miller itself decided nothing, one way or the other. It certainly did not create any lists of what guns were or were not suitable to militia use or training.

C.D. it is nice to meet someone else who actually understands Miller and what it was about and what didn't get decided and why.

I've always been confused by the "collective view" of the second amendment. To me, the founders weren't exactly non-specific in their grammar. When they reserved rights to specific parties, they specified which parties. When they intended the Federal government to have specific rights, they said the Federal government. When they intended that the states have specific rights, they referred to the several states. And, when they intended that the People have specific rights, they referred to the People. DUH!

The 'collective rights' viewpoint is an invention dating from the late 20th century. It is and always has been a sham position intended to nullify the Second Amendment.

After all, how does one protect a 'collective right'? What gun control law would violate a 'collective right'?

Re: Brady/HCI reaction to court ruling

For years now various gun control groups have tried to recast themselves as moderate organizations only interested in stopping illegal violence. But now and then the mask drops and they expose themselves for the hateful extremists they truly are. Reaction to the overturning of the Washington D.C. firearms ban is one of those moments.

That the Brady group and their fellow travelers bewail the ending of the Washington D.C. handgun ban demonstrates the Brady's true agenda and what kind law they really want to impose on the whole of the United States.