U.S. v. Miller [2nd amendment]

[palani]

Interesting case from 1939. Basically lays down the principle that any arm carried by the military may be carried as a counter measure under the 2nd amendment. Miller lost because at the time the military used no sawed off shotguns.


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.

I knew an Army tank commander who admitted to running his tank around the Waco complex. I know of no reason why tanks could be excluded from consideration under the 2nd amendment.

[Nomoss]

Do you have the link for this?

[palani]

Do you have the link for this?

Several

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1938/1938_696

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

[Uncle Salty]

Interesting case from 1939. Basically lays down the principle that any arm carried by the military may be carried as a counter measure under the 2nd amendment. Miller lost because at the time the military used no sawed off shotguns.



I knew an Army tank commander who admitted to running his tank around the Waco complex. I know of no reason why tanks could be excluded from consideration under the 2nd amendment.

To 'bear' would seem to mean to carry. It would have to be a pretty small tank to carry around.

[Libertarian_Guard]

"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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."



http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/millervus.html

[Cebu_4_2]

this is close:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t941279/

[palani]

Cedar Rapids Iowa police departments are looking at having their 'officers' carry AR15s in their vehicles. That certainly cinches it. If this para-military organization can be equipped then who is going to deny anyone their right to be armed in a similar manner?

No link. The news story hasn't hit the web yet.

[Publico]

Miller was sitting in prison when the Appeals Court reversed his conviction. He thereupon took off for the hills so only the government's lawyers argued the case (law) before the Supreme Court.

[palani]

Miller was sitting in prison when the Appeals Court reversed his conviction. He thereupon took off for the hills so only the government's lawyers argued the case (law) before the Supreme Court.

Doesn't matter that this was a loss for Miller. The dicta established a precedent that if the military could have one then so could the general public (felons and insane exempt )

[Publico]

Doesn't matter that this was a loss for Miller. The dicta established a precedent that if the military could have one then so could the general public (felons and insane exempt )

Dicta does not establish precedent except if you're this Dikta (http://losthatsportsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mike-ditka.jpg)

[palani]

Dicta does not establish precedent except if you're this Dikta (http://losthatsportsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mike-ditka.jpg)

An argument is used to uphold the conviction of a man. That argument is that "he cannot have this item because the military does not have it". Now, in this day and age, the argument has become "he cannot have this item because the military has it".

Can you not see how EMBARRASSING this is, to have one's nose rubbed in judicial debate of the past, only 70 years ago, that was used to actually convict someone of a crime, when you are now arguing the opposite point of view? When U.S. v. Miller is reconsidered and the original sentence is reversed THEN and only THEN can this sort of reasoning be considered VALID (the reasoning that the item is possessed by the military and only the military).

[palani]

http://i46.tinypic.com/9igx3a.jpg

[BarnkleBob]

Read Andrews v. State 1871 .... very well explained & reasoned

[midnight rambler]

Read Andrews v. State 1871 .... very well explained & reasoned

Was that case decided during the military occupation ('Reconstruction')?