BAN ALL SPORTING WEAPONS

K

KAM_Indianapolis

New member
I knew that would make you look...

In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution
dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ``[w]ith 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 with that end in view.' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Therefore, `in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.'

Of course, now the militart/police are using just such a weapon.

If a law is made that bans milita type arms, it is un-constitutional, according to this decision. So the only arms they can ban are sporting arms. No more of them dangerous Olympic guns. No more deer rifle. Although Wal-mart will be having specials on M-16's.

I know other people have thought of this argument. So why aren't we taking the govt to court??
 
The military does use shotguns, that have barrel lenghts UNDER 18" these days. Though theses are mostly used by Special Forces (But they are still part of the military).

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
The way I look at it, the FIRST amendment guarentees the freedom of speach. This was intended to protect POLITICAL SPEACH first and foremost. The fact that it protects Larry Flint so he can publish porn or the music industry to record and sell some of that crap is a side benefit.

Analogously, the SECOND amendment was intended to protect MILITARY firearms first and foremost. Just like the 1st protects porn, the second protects non-military arms like Olympic 22's and your typical deer rifles.

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
As an Army Medic or Navy Hospital Corpsman, one of the two weapons you're allowed to use, by the Geneva Convention, is a shotgun.

I don't think the founding fathers, in their wildest dreams, thought that anyone would consider banning sporting arms, so they didn't include these.

We all know that they meant to protect military arms so that the population could protect the country, not the government per se, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
 
I've been thinking about this for a while now. I take a little different angle though.

BEFORE you ban any of those evil, black plastic rifles because of thier supposedly deadly rate of fire, you need to ban those long-range, TRULY hi-power rifles capable of killing at long range. Take those Remingtons first, then we can talk about my Bushmaster.
 
Destructo6, where in the Second Article do you find words limiting "arms" of "the people," to only military arms????

Just wondering? J.B.
 
If I use Rat shot in my 22 pistol, is it a sawed-off shot gun less than 18"? (And since it is an Olympic ISU,and I would never do that.)
And it is also a sporting arm, target.So do I regester it? (I`m just being an @ss) :) But it can happen.

Kinda off the point.

If I was to get shot by a shot gun I`d rather it be sawed-off than long barreled, less damage in one spot.Destructo6 what do you think about the sawed- off as to long barreled? Not that I want to get shot with eather.

The Anti`s Just keep coming. When will the sheeple wake up? :mad:

[This message has been edited by B9mmHP (edited August 24, 2000).]
 
The entire argument is rendered moot if one considers this: the right to life (stated as: my life and the fruits of my labor are MINE to do with as I please) is effectively meaningless if one is not allowed to defend oneself. The right to self-defense is merely an extension of the right to life. The right to life is the moral base for laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, slavery, and assault. If one believes in the right to life, one has to accept that defending one's life is a right, too. If someone contends that it's the government's right or duty to defend lives, that, in effect, means those lives are the property of the gov't, and you are therefore a slave.
If you don't believe in the right to self-defense, you don't believe in freedom. If you believe in freedom, you HAVE to believe in the right to self-defense.

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center

[This message has been edited by 45King (edited August 24, 2000).]
 
What we should do is appeal us vs miller
on the grounds that a shotgun is indeed a
military weapon with a outstanding service record in both ww2 and viet nam.

The shot gun is still being used by both police and swat teams and other special forces units.

Why do we always let the gun grabbers do us when we could be fighting back? We are all to danmed cheap with our money. If you are healthy and can work you can always earn more money but once you let them steal your second ammendment rights and confiscate or demill your guns , the guns and your second ammendment rights are gone forever and without the second ammendment,
the United States of America as we know it
will not long endure.
 
Why no Miller-based suit? Likely the biggest reason is: what happens if we lose? Neither side's lobbyists really want to take the question of gun rights to the Supreme Court because a loss would pretty much terminate one's own side of the argument. Also, the possible outcomes and consequences are more varied than you might think.

An example horror scenario:
NRA & HCI go to the Supreme Court. NRA wins. The HCI-supporting US President subsequently signs this Executive Order: "As the Supreme Court has made clear, US citizens have the right to participate in a well-regulated militia with their own weapons. To maintain and promote this well-regulated milita, the US Federal Government is hereby directed to send one Thompson Contender rifle-caliber handgun to each household in the country. The members of each household may keep and bear their issued weapon as they see fit. Thus, everyone's right to keep and bear arms is assured. In the interests of uniformity and the prevention of unsuitable firearms being available to children and criminals, all other firearms must be turned in immediately. In the interest of preparation and safety training, the head of each household is directed to appear on the town square at noon on the first day of each month and shall be given the necessary militia training. Should one fail to appear at that time, s/he will be considered negligent, unsafe, and unprepared, and will be required to turn in their issued firearm."

Unfortunately, without crafting and pushing a case through to the top, both sides are letting random criminal cases drive the issue, leaving the bottom-feeding scum of society ultimately dictate the rights of the most noble among us.
 
The problem with Miller, if you read the opinion word for word, is not that a shotgun is or isn't a military weapon - it's that NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT. If it was, we all know it's an easy case. A judge/jury can't make a judgement on something without it being presented as evidence in court as an oral argument, or tagged evidence, or documentation, etc. I think at the time the appeal was heard Miller was either dead or in jail on another charge, so his court-appointed counsel just let it go. He could've very easily brought in military experts or DOD documents that list a <18" bbl shotgun as military issue, but since the case was at that point moot (as far as his client was concerned) he just let it go. If the NRA or GOA were around and had picked up the case on behalf of all of us, we might be living in a different world.
 
Read this again carefully:

in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.'
______________________________
This tells me that this particular judge would have ruled in favor of the individual right to bear ANYTHING military - in todays terms that would mean from the 9mm handgun up to the .50BMG (...and beyond ?), if the lawyer had just presented the evidence. What an opportunity we had ! Of course, the chances of resurrecting this case and getting a sympathetic judge assigned are less every day, which is why we have to pick our battles more carefully
 
Yes, I know lawyering is the great American pastime, but one should be sure of the facts / law prior to getting all hot under the collar. Too damn many amateur attorneys here. ;)

The Miller decision is really not about whether or not the shotgun in question is an appropraite milita / military weapon, but whether the court should recognize that it was indeed so and that the fact that it is cannot be reaonable diputed. As mentioned above the defense failed to provide evidence for something that cannot be recognized as indisputable fact known to the court.

For more clarification:

Martindale-Hubbel Definition:
recognition by the court of a fact that is not reasonably disputable and without the introduction of supporting evidence <took judicial notice that January 1 is a legal holiday>
 
All this talk about "militia weapons" really misses the point. What the RKA community almost never quotes from this case is the sentance that I am paraphrasing: "The Second Ammendment was obviously created to ensure the effectiveness of a well-regulated state militia, and must be interpreted with that end in view."

In ohter words, Miller said SELF DEFENSE IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMMENDMENT!!!

If the court continues to take the Miller point of view (that the militia clause LIMITS the right to own guns, rather than helping explain it), we will lose. None of my guns are "miltia" arms, and I'm not in a "regulated" militia (the unorganized militia is unregulated), therefore according to miller, I don't have RKBA!

Miller is dead wrong! I would bet the next supreme court case uses the assumptions in miller (RKBA is limited to the militia, the gov can regulate weapons) to eliminate the Second Ammendment as an argument. The Judges in Miller couldn't flat out say the second is not an individual right, but they treated it as such, and judges now will have no trouble going farther than they did, using Miller as a justification.
 
Jay Baker: I see where you got that, I wasn't very clear. By using the "militia" clause, they implicitly protect militia weapons and implicitly don't protect sporting only firearms (like a Perazzi or similar). That's the way it looks to me. In my eye, there are only a very few firearms that would not be suitable as a militia weapon.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>NRA & HCI go to the Supreme Court. NRA wins. The HCI-supporting US President subsequently signs this Executive Order: "As the Supreme Court has made clear, US citizens have the right to participate in a well-regulated militia with their own weapons. To maintain and promote this well-regulated milita, the US Federal Government is hereby directed to send one Thompson Contender rifle-caliber handgun to each household in the country. The members of each household may keep and bear their issued weapon as they see fit. Thus, everyone's right to keep and bear arms is assured. In the interests of uniformity and the prevention of unsuitable firearms being available to children and criminals, all other firearms must be turned in immediately. In the interest of preparation and safety training, the head of each household is directed to appear on the town square at noon on the first day of each month and shall be given the necessary militia training. Should one fail to appear at that time, s/he will be considered negligent, unsafe, and unprepared, and will be required to turn in their issued firearm."
[/quote]

The problem with this horror scenario, is that the president cannot order us to do anything. As sovereign citizens, we are the President's boss, not the other way around. They are trying to twist it around that way, but there's not enough sheeple yet.

In short, an executive order for "We the People" to turn in all our guns means diddly and would be unenforceable.

------------------
Pray as though it's all up to God, act as though it's all up to you.

Aim small- miss small...

If it isna Scottish, it's CRAP! RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top