Monday, August 8, 2011

Cowman, you know so much about the Second Amendment

I trust you are familiar with US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

At the end of the decision it says:

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.


That refers to Justice WIlliam O. Douglas who had just joined the court at the time the decision had argued. In a later case, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143(1972) Justice Douglas said at 150 -51:

The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id. at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

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 [p151] secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.


Id. at 178-179.

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment.


Please state why the is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days who happened to be a member of the Miller Court would not have a better understanding of US v. Miller than you do?

19 comments:

  1. Please show me where I said I understood US v Miller better than Justice Douglas? All I said was that I was pretty well versed on the 2nd Amend. I will concede that you are much more well versed on the 2nd Amend., but that doesn't prove that I don't know what I am talking about.

    Personally, I think the Miller decision was the correct one as I think the recent SCOTUS decisions were correct.

    I seriously doubt that you'll see this as doggone seems to have a vendetta against me but personally, I don't really care.

    Oh BTW you were wrong about DongHa, there was a Seabee base there and there were Seabees at Con Thien who fought with the Marines because I was one of them and no, doggone, I will never provide you anything about my military record, as I said before, believe me or not, it matters not one iota of concern to me at all.

    I mean this sincerely when I say thank you for your service to the U.K. and I hope you have a happy and prosperous life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OK, Cowman, harmonise Miller to the Heller-McDonald decisions.

    I don't think you can do that ion light of Justice Douglas's comment--unless of course you agree with me that Justice Stevens offers the correct intepretation of the Second Amendment in his dissent.

    As for your military service, I am happy to let that drop. Althought I will point out that The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in n Britain allows for adverse inferences to be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

    * fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;

    I don't doubt your fact, I only question that you refuse to offer that bit of information. The fact that your class number could be used to verify your claim of service (or refute it) is something which can be left for those of to infer what we will.

    As you make assumptions about me without personal knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Granted I did make assumptions about you without knowing anything about you and for that I offer you a heartfelt apology.

    I don't offer the info that doggone asked for due to her comments about me being a liar and a poseur. Seems to me she made some assumptions about me without knowing me, and at this point I will never offer that info.

    Once again, my apologies to you and thank you for your service to the U.K.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok you've given me some things to think about, let me put on my thinking cap for a while and hope I don't burn my brain out

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why it is a court.....August 8, 2011 at 6:43 PM

    One of nine different justices..... go figure, that is why the supreme court not the supreme judge...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cowman, I'm the one currently moderating your comments here, posting them.

    I believe Laci joins Jade and I in considering you a poseur, a 'wannabe' in Jade's words.

    So, if you think that it is going to change your reception here to suck up to any of them, and expect them to side with you.......I can assure you that Laci has already shared with me this morning his displeasure with you for maligning me. He is here, in part, because I asked him to join.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Congratulations!

    You won again!

    http://chicagohandgun.org/2011/08/lawson-v-chicago-victory/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok, so Laci chastises me, and rightly so, because I made some assumptions and you sit here and call me a poseur without knowing anything about me just because I refuse to give you any info about my class #? Can you say double standards?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cowman, I'm willing to leave your service (or lack thereof) alone. As I said, those who want to assume can assume.

    FWM, can you say ultra vires?

    Anyway, that was an administrative review and subject to judicial review--so, I wouldn't pop the champagne quite yet.

    Why it is a court--please answer the question. As I pointed out, Justice Stevens provided two dissents which contradicted Scalia's opinions and followed his predecessor on the Court, Justice Douglas's, interpretation.

    I would also ask why it would be amusing that Douglas would follow that interpretation given his judicial reputation if it were incorrect.

    Have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now I am 100% confused, are you Laci the Dog or Laci the Chinese Crested?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chinese Crested IS a type of dog; one person, two variants on the name.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I did not know there was a breed of dog called Chinese Crested. Learn something new every day

    ReplyDelete
  13. "FWM, can you say ultra vires?

    Anyway, that was an administrative review and subject to judicial review--so, I wouldn't pop the champagne quite yet."


    Actually, that was really meant as a jab for Jade. He once claimed a "win" when a lawsuit was merely filed against a state pro-gun bill that had overwhelmingly passed both houses and was signed by the Governor. I figure if merely filing a suit against a pro-gun bill was a "win", I would be happy to let him claim "win" all of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cowman, be careful about claiming double standards; you've jumped to unwarranted conclusions about multiple people here.

    As to what we think of your claimed military service? It was Laci who suggested I ask you the seabee class #. I'm reasonably sure Laci and I share pretty much a similar opinion as to your claimed service.

    You might want to step carefully with those assumptions of yours...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Now that you'all are gettin' along so swimmingly, can we get back to the gun arguments?

    Laci's quote from Justice Douglas is a show-stopper. I especially liked that part about psychiatric testing. That should weed out some of the bad (crazy) apples.

    I believe the country's going through a nutty time with gun rights. Sooner or later it'll come around. Meantime, remember JadeGold's second goal

    ?

    ReplyDelete
  16. DOUGLAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

    So his statement came as a dissent to the decision of the court. What does this have to do with how the Supreme Court ruled?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jim, yes, it comes from a dissent,but obviously you need it explained to you in simple language.

    Douglas was a member of the Supreme Court at the time of Miller. He SHOULD have some idea of how it was to be interpreted.

    His successor, Justice Stevens, expounded that interpretation in his Heller-McDonald dissents.

    Scalia and Scalito both came up with some shit out of thin air that make no sense.

    They judicially amended the Constitution, which is ultra vires, outside of their powers as judges.

    If Silberman can overturn Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057, 1058 (D.C. 1987) in Parker without good reason, then there is even better reason to ignore Heller-McDonald in that Scalia and Scalito acted outside their powers as justices.

    Got that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Laci - now all you need are 5 Supreme Court judges to agree with you. Let us know when that happens.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jim, wouldn't it be that Laci needs only one more?

    ReplyDelete