Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 clarified what the 2nd Amendment means. [View all]jmg257
(11,996 posts)47. The Miller decision didn't go against Miller because he wasn't in a militia,
But because no evidence was presented that his sawed off shotgun was an effective militia arm.
Hardly supportive of this notion that the right to arms was always recognized as a collective right. {Or that military-style weapons weren't covered.}
"the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
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."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 clarified what the 2nd Amendment means. [View all]
brush
Oct 2017
OP
So you think things are just fine? The next mass shooting will happen with things the way they are.
brush
Oct 2017
#10
Well you see, that is an entirely different point than the one we were just discussing.
jmg257
Oct 2017
#11
Certainly a related point. The point being that the 2nd Amendment was not meant to be...
brush
Oct 2017
#13
Well, lets not call it a right, but a power...its articulated well in Article 1...
jmg257
Oct 2017
#32
10 U.S. Code Section 246 is the statute today. "Unorganized militia" covers a lot of people by law
Pope George Ringo II
Oct 2017
#5
Well, the "organized militia" brings us back to the National Guard
Pope George Ringo II
Oct 2017
#59
While I do not object to common sense gun laws to try and prevent things like the las vegas shooting
cstanleytech
Oct 2017
#14
All that was superceded by the Act of 1903 though that created the National Guard.
brush
Oct 2017
#25
So you're saying that since it's obsoleted, we need to disregard the clause about...
brush
Oct 2017
#33
I'm completely on board with the notion that there's room for further regulation of firearms
ClarendonDem
Oct 2017
#72
SCOTUS should have codified registration, insurance, background checks, quantity limitations...
brush
Oct 2017
#27
So, if I read you guys right that have thoroughly researched this issue...
KY_EnviroGuy
Oct 2017
#39
I've often thought that SCOTUS avoids Second Amendment cases because of Miller
Pope George Ringo II
Oct 2017
#60
Agreed - Miller died, so no evidence was presented. But imagine if he had a BAR? Would autos still
jmg257
Oct 2017
#62
Like someone needs to own 40-some, unregistered guns. We get Las Vegas, Orlando...
brush
Oct 2017
#58
Ridiculous bit of broad brushing. Banks couldn't stay in business if there was no law against...
brush
Oct 2017
#77
You are qualifying the language in a way the the drafters of the 2d Amendment did not
ClarendonDem
Oct 2017
#55
"the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms." Well - you got that right
jmg257
Oct 2017
#56
When and where has militia membership as prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms
Marengo
Oct 2017
#63
When and where has militia membership as a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by
Marengo
Oct 2017
#61
When and where has militia membership as a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by
Marengo
Oct 2017
#84
You would think but guns have become sacred totems to fetishers of a certain demographic segment...
brush
Oct 2017
#83
2A is for self-defense. It is for militias, as Federalist 29 and even anti-federalists discuss.
TheBlackAdder
Oct 2017
#87