Just received this in an email and I haven't had time to read it yet myself. I'll put it out for everyone to read. I may update with comments later.
Been at the Doctors most of the afternoon, for the routine semi-annual stuff Cholesterol down to 206 and the bad level is 131 and falling, so I'm feeling pretty good.
Update- I have read about half of this thing and the conclusion. Basically from what I have read it gives one of the best explanations of Miller I have ever read and calls into question the efficiancy of all court decisions since then.
They basically (ed..and to use my words, not theirs) imply that there has been a distinct misunderstanding of Miller by the Courts and that through a process of ignorance, agenda and laziness the courts have not done the research necessary to make an informed intellegent decision on the actual meaning of the second amendment.
This document was prepared using our tax dollars by the following people;
Steven G. Bradbury - Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. - Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. Kevin Marshall - Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General
In my opinion these were tax dollars well spent, would that more of our public servants have the backbone, and intestinal fortitude to present such material for public consumption.
Agree with it of not the Sarah Brady's and Million Commie Mommies of the world are wrong and have always been wrong.
It is the considered opinion of these fine Gentlemen that citizens of the United States are protected by the Constitution for the ownership of military firearms. In their analysis of Miller they make the following observation;
"Even so, absent from the Court's opinion in Miller was any discussion of whether the defendants were members of the National Guard or any other organized military force, whether they were transporting the shotgun in the service of such a force, or whether they were "physically capable of" bearing arms in one and thus even eligible for service. The nature of the weapon at issue, not of the defendants or their activities, appeared to be the key fact, and this aspect of the opinion tends to point toward the individual-right view rather than the quasi-collective-right view."
Miller was never really decided by the Supreme Court. They remanded it back to the lower court "Because they had not been asked nor was it within their perview to conclude whether a "sawed-off shotgun" was an impliment of the militia and therefore protected under the second amendment.
"Citing an 1840 decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Aymette v. State, the Court concluded that it was not "within judicial notice" that a sawed-off shotgun was a weapon that was "any part of the ordinary military equipment" or whose use "could contribute to the common defence." Absent evidence, therefore, the Court could not "say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
This opinion published by the Justice Department goes way beyond Miller and and rightfully makes the case that the language of the Second Amendment refers to an individual one.
I have no idea what kind of effect this will have on the agendas of the legislators and judges, but i do know know that this is the single most well researched and accurate document that I have seen published in a very long time.
As Pal John Farnum says; Spread the sunshine