So, Sammy, what changed the law allowing for a reinterpretation of Miller?Rybar's reliance on Miller is misplaced. The language Rybar cites is taken from the following passage:84
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.85
307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818.86
We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia-related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir.1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.
Even more ridiculous, how can something which refers to Congress's power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 apply to the states?
How could you attach your name to such pieces of bullshit as the Heller-McDonald decisions?
"So, Sammy, what changed the law allowing for a reinterpretation of Miller?"
ReplyDeleteNothing changed--Miller was just wrong.
Other than your opinion and you want it to be so...
DeleteWas there a legislative change that invalidated Miller?
Laci - is it allowed for the Supreme Court to decide that a previous ruling of the Supreme Court was wrong? Does it matter how many judges voted in favor of one ruling if it is overturned by a later ruling? For instance if a unanimous ruling by one court decision is overturned by a 5-4 ruling of another court - is the new ruling automatically null and void?
ReplyDeleteSeriously?
DeleteYou didn't study this in civics class?
They most certainly can decide that a decision was incorrect.
DeleteBTW, Miller was UNANIMOUS in its holding from the Heller-McDonald decisions, which were 5-4.
I would also toss in that Heller-McDonald is suspect in the judicial bias.
Also, there is something called stare decisis that is: a principle or rule established in previous legal cases that are either binding on, or persuasive for, a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained.
Scalia dislikes this principle, even though it is an aspect of the common law system.
Of course, if I didn't care about the law and just wanted strong gun control laws, I would have no problem with Heller-McDonald, but the fact that those decisions are intellectually and legally dishonest make me dislike them.
Does that make sense to you?
"Also, there is something called stare decisis that is: a principle or rule established in previous legal cases that are either binding on, or persuasive for, a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained."
DeleteSince the main finding in Miller was that the shotgun in question was not used by the militia and therefore not covered by the 2nd Amendment, what portion of the Heller or McDonald decisions overturned that finding? I don't see anywhere in Miller where the court stated that ownership of firearms was limited to militia members, only that the firearms had to have a military use.
Wow, did you miss that Heller-McDonald totally rewrote the Second Amendment and the constitution?
DeleteHeller:
Law abiding citizens cannot be prohibited from possessing guns in their homes.
McDonald,
This also applies to the States?
Jim, I would have to go a lot more in depth to try and explain this to you, but the basic gist is that the Heller-McDonald decisions were ultra vires, that is beyond the powers of the court as established by the Constitution.
But, it goes a long way to explaining your mindset if you have no problems with such things.
I thought McDonald was more of a 14th issue than a 2nd.
DeleteDidn't McDonald basically just say that Heller said it was an individual right and that it is incorporated?
No. It was a 2nd Amendment issue, that was split 5-4.
DeleteThe 14th Amendment is how it is incorporated, and the 5 who voted for it couldn't agree on that.
It was a very flimsy, ill considered decision; 5-4 votes, especially where the 5 are also divided are not strong decisions.
Laci - which parts of the Constitution do not apply to the States?
Delete