Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Case Citation 2
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You obviously do not understand that federal appeals courts, if there is no clear guidance from the Supreme Court, can and do look at how similar issues have been handled in the other circuits. The 5th Circuit in Emerson, for example, noted that virtually every other circuit has rejected the idea that the 2A is for the benefit of private citizens, not states.
--------------------------------------
It’s clear my understanding of the issue far outweighs yours. Setting that aside, it is your own personal opinion that silence by the other districts concerting Emerson is somehow conclusive to your argument.
Numerous lower and State courts have made rulings both consistent and in refutation of the standard model.
======================================
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.
I also see that you once again failed to reconcile the fact that States cannot keep troops which is cited in Miller. “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 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]."
if your state wants to require that in the event space aliens land every adult male shall arm himself with musket & shot, an AK-47, or a Jedi lightsabre, the 2A will protect you. Otherwise, the 2A is no barrier to the gun control laws that are needed in the U.S. Sorry.”
------------------------------------
Your argument is erroneous because it presumes that States must codify what types of arms are allowed and what types are not allowed. Notice than in Miller, Arkansas law was not reviewed, but a body of law from other States, with historical background added Blackstone and Adam Smith. You acknowledge that statutes from others States were referenced in the opinion, hence the Court was not concerned with the statute of a particular State.