General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,763 posts)

14. But some in yours as well

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 10:52 AM

Aug 2019

You refer to "the militia interp" as though mentioning "militia' means that they agree with any other interpretation that also evaluates 2A through the lens of the militia clause.

That simply isn't so.

The interpretation that you seem to be promoting is fairly common - 2A was created to enable a militia... the National Guard has taken the place of the militia and he's not in the Guard... therefore 2A does not apply to him. That is not "the militia interp" the unanimous Miller court used. There is no mention of whether or not "militia" excludes Miller... merely that it excludes the specific weapon.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What America would look like if it didn't change their Amendments [View all] Soph0571 Aug 2019 OP

The basic point is accurate... but some of the examples are off FBaggins Aug 2019 #1

I agree. Pacifist Patriot Aug 2019 #2

agree. Repeal it! n/t Brainstormy Aug 2019 #5

We should have stayed with England, we'd have health care too. Hoyt Aug 2019 #3

Good point PJMcK Aug 2019 #26

Think the author should do some more research - 3rd and 6th amendments in 1971? jmg257 Aug 2019 #4

Research? Nah, it's just a typo BruceWane Aug 2019 #15

supreme court 1939 miller decision jimmy the one Aug 2019 #6

' raging moderate Aug 2019 #7

What do you think would have happened had Miller livrd aikoaiko Aug 2019 #9

had jack miller lived jimmy the one Aug 2019 #29

For people who think a shotgun is good home defense, aikoaiko Aug 2019 #32

Maybe... but it doesn't have to be under that 18" barrel standard to be useful for home defense FBaggins Aug 2019 #34

Hey Jimmy! Since by 1939, the people were already only the UNorganized Militia, jmg257 Aug 2019 #10

flies in your ointments jimmy the one Aug 2019 #12

Understood about Heller - we were talking Miller. You use the decision as proof of militia relation jmg257 Aug 2019 #13

what they did NOT say, does not trump what they DID say jimmy the one Aug 2019 #16

What I stated, just like the USSC did, is quite clear...exactly WHY it went against Miller... jmg257 Aug 2019 #18

But some in yours as well FBaggins Aug 2019 #14

the prevailing 1939 thought was no individual rkba jimmy the one Aug 2019 #17

You've provided no evidence for that FBaggins Aug 2019 #19

flies in the bulloffal jimmy the one Aug 2019 #23

Once again... general claims without evidence FBaggins Aug 2019 #28

not unanimous en banc like 1939 scotus re miller jimmy the one Aug 2019 #31

Entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts FBaggins Aug 2019 #33

the phantom justice, ray roberts jimmy the one Aug 2019 #35

Hiding by replying to yourself? FBaggins Aug 2019 #36

1938-39 Dept of Justice DoJ amicus brief jimmy the one Aug 2019 #25

So if Miller had a gun that was suitable for militia service then he would've been ok? hack89 Aug 2019 #30

Civil Rights were considered unconstitutional, radius777 Aug 2019 #8

criticism of 2008 heller decision by british scholars jimmy the one Aug 2019 #11

Those British scholars would use English law to justify us still being a colony. former9thward Aug 2019 #21

Your suspicions are necessary to validate your own biases. LanternWaste Aug 2019 #24

Umm, put of idle curiosity Mike_DuBois Aug 2019 #37

The Heller decision goes to great lengths to discuss the history/origins of 2A FBaggins Aug 2019 #38

bulloffal jimmy the one Aug 2019 #40

scalia invalidly cited english history in heller jimmy the one Aug 2019 #39

Yeah, sorry 'bout that Mike_DuBois Aug 2019 #42

Many errors in the post. former9thward Aug 2019 #20

Follow the money... Buckeyeblue Aug 2019 #22

Good post, Soph PJMcK Aug 2019 #27

more truth about the militia intent of 2ndA jimmy the one Aug 2019 #41