Letters to the Editor
WeikuBoy
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 62
-
Xanthro is an Idiot
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mary Jane, your post made me laugh, because Xanthro obviously has no legal background. His posts are difficult to follow because he doesn't know what he is talking about.
For example, he wrongly compares the gun and abortion issues. In fact, there is nothing that protects gun rights comparable to Roe v Wade. The key Supreme Court case re guns is from 1939, and was decided AGAINST the gun owner. There hasn't been a major case since then because the gun lobby doesn't like the Miller case or its progeny and is afraid of what the Supreme Court might say next.
It is great political theater for senile old Chuck Heston to hold up a musket to the NRA and yelp about his "2A rights" and his cold dead hands; but in truth the gun lobby fights hard in Congress and in state legislatures and city councils across the country to prevent ANY reasonable gun laws, because it knows its fanciful reading of the 2A as allowing rednecks unfettered access to assault weapons and cop-killer bullets would be laughed out of court. The gun lobby's strategy is to make sure no new case ever reaches the Supreme Court, so that it can continue to wage its successful POLITICAL fight rather than risk losing in court.
-
Xanthro, 1:58 p.m.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WeikuBoy: "Did the court not look to state law to determine if Mr. Miller's sawed-off shotgun had any such [reasonable] relationship to his state's militia?"
------------------------------
No, Miller was charged under Title 26, or the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Federal Law.
The Court ruled it was the "absence of evidence" that such an instrument had military uses.
-
Xanthro, 6:01 p.m.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WeikuBoy: "You agree that according to Miller a weapon must have "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and that IED's and RPG's as well as sawed-off shotguns "might" not have such a needed relationship. (cf. Iraqi insurgency.) That's good; but then you flatly deny that the court in Miller looked to state law for evidence that might establish such a relationship. Oops. How embarrassing for you."
--------------------------------------
No, I denied that Miller was charged under State law, as he was not. The court simply looked to state law, and other sources, in order to determine if such an instrument [sawed off shotgun] bore a relationship to a well regulated militia. Note, the laws reviewed did not ever apply to the jurisdiction in question, Arkansas. Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York laws were reviewed, along with Blackstone and Adam Smith to provide a historical context for understanding what a militia consists of.
-
Xanthro, 6:01 p.m. (Even Better)
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WeikuBoy: "You flatly deny that the court in Miller looked to state law for evidence that might establish such a relationship. Oops. How embarrassing for you.
“The Supreme Court in Miller quoted at great length a Massachusetts statute from 1784; a Virginia statute from 1785; and a New York statute from 1786; all of which detailed the types and quantities of arms their citizen militias must maintain (e.g., a well-oiled musket and twenty bullets, "six fathoms of match", etc.), before concluding as follows:
"Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the [idea that the 2A protects sawed-off shotguns]."
--------------------------------------
Xanthro: "No, I denied that Miller was charged under State law, as he was not. The court simply looked to state law, and other sources, in order to determine if such an instrument [sawed off shotgun] bore a relationship to a well regulated militia. Note, the laws reviewed did not ever apply to the jurisdiction in question, Arkansas. Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York laws were reviewed, along with Blackstone and Adam Smith to provide a historical context for understanding what a militia consists of."
-
Final Note to Xanthro
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Xanthro, you are just too stupid to continue attempting this debate. You don't understand the law well enough to even realize how ridiculous your arguments sound. The final straw was when you finally got around to laying on us some of your "many" big anti-gun control 2A precedents, and it turned out to be two cases from the freakin' 19th century and another one from 1931, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE MILLER CASE. (Though I must admit, the cite from ante-bellum Georgia gave me a laugh.) Then again, there was also the 1990 case THAT WASN'T EVEN A 2A CASE. Pathetic. Just pathetic.
I take it back; the last straw was when you accused the federal appeals courts of silently approving of Emerson (a case you didn't even know about until I told you about it), EVEN THOUGH EMERSON WAS ONLY DECIDED IN 2001, long AFTER almost all the other circuits had decided the issue, and before they will have had a chance to revisit the issue, should they so desire. It's like trying to teach a pig to talk; and frankly it reflects very poorly on me that I spent so much time trying to have a discussion with you. In that sense I am indeed the stupid one, and I apologize to you, to Salon, and to any unfortunate readers.