Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Gun control and the Constitution
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay: [QB] Justice Holmes once said: [QUOTE][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.[/QUOTE] Fo2, if the Court hasn't said anything latley, that rather means it's settled law that the Constitution allows for regulation of weapons. Whether you agree is beside the point, but might make good reading and argument. However, I believe the reasons given in disagreement are rather lacking. Your Masonic Lodge analogy I find rather deficient in historical evidence and circular in reasoning. You will find a well stated definition of militia in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Miller also held: [QUOTE]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. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.[/QUOTE] Miller held Congress' authority for such regulation as Art. 1, 8 of the Constitution which reads: [QUOTE]To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[/QUOTE] Including the above in a discussion of the Second Amendment makes the 'well regulated' clause rather more important. Moreover, Justice Douglas writes in dissent in Adams v.Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972): [QUOTE]The Second Amendment, it was held [in Miller], "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."[/QUOTE] And Justice Douglas goes on to quote from the Miller decison: [QUOTE]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 [407 U.S. 143, 151] secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion..[/QUOTE] In Lesis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) the Court writes: [QUOTE]These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia")[/QUOTE] And Finally, the ever vocal Justice Thomas writes in a concurring opinion in Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States decided rather recently on June 27, 1997. The case regards the Brady Bill and Thomas' opinion might signal the Court wanting to take another look at Miller. At any rate, his opinion reads in part: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3