My take on US v. Miller again

Girlymen understand this;

The Second Amendment is not just about target shooting or hunting. The Second Amendment is not about need. The Second Amendment does not grant or confer a Right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is a written recognition that all human beings are naturally born with the obligation and the duty to utilize man made tools to defend and protect themselves, their loved ones and their country. The Second Amendment guarantees that the Right shall not be infringed.

I know this will be hard to comprehend, but try anyway

The National Firearms Act of 1934 - Was not enacted to prevent law abiding citizens from owning military firearms. The purpose of the Act was to require the taxation through registration of a certain class of firearms used by GANGSTERS. (Damn it must of hurt reading that)

Too many Metrosexual Dopes have been misquoting US v. Miller for too long.

1. Miller was charged with violation of the NFA - transportation of an UNTAXED short barreled shotgun.

2. Millers attorney Gutensohn challenged the constitutionality of the NFA in that it usurped the Police Powers of the State and it violated the Second Amendment. (As will be shown Gutensohn erred in not specifying exactly why the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment.)

3. Judge Ragon only ruled it (the Act) unconstitutional on the merits cited by Gutensohn and dismissed the charges against Miller. (As will be shown Ragon erred in not issuing a Not Guilty/Guilty verdict)

4. Prosecutor Barry appealed Ragons "unconstitutional ruling" to SCOTUS.

5. SCOTUS heard the Constitutional Appeal and made two points;

• A) That a law requiring the taxation through registration of certain firearms used primarily by GANGSTERS does not usurp the Police Powers of the State and,
  
• B) as to the Second Amendment we have not been asked to decide whether a sawed off shotgun IS or IS NOT an implement of the Militia and you have not told us that it HAS or HAS NOT any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, because of that we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. (Gutensohn's error ref: #2 above)

6. SCOTUS reversed Ragons decision concerning 5A (above) and remanded the case to the Lower Court for Ragon to decide whether a short barreled shotgun is an implement of the Militia. (ref: #5B above). (The U.S.government purchased thirty thousand short-barrel shotguns for the armed forces in World War I.)

7. Miller passed away before Judge Ragon could carry out the instructions handed down to him by SCOTUS.

This next part is for all of you illiterate fools that have;

• a) never read Miller for yourselves and/or,
• b) been relying Girlyman interpretations by Metrosexuals more stupid than you are,
• c) and/or the Public School of your youth employed an incompetent Political Science/History Teacher.

For most of you Metrosexuals I am betting all of the above.

SCOTUS never said that the Right to own military firearms WAS NOT an individual one.

Miller's side was not represented when SCOTUS heard arguments, if it had it is likely that Gutensohn would have convinced SCOTUS that a short barreled shotgun was in fact an instrument of the militia and there would not be the Metrosexual controversy we have today. (The U.S.government purchased thirty thousand short-barrel shotguns for the armed forces in World War I.)
Only the prosecution was there to present their side.

Despite Miller's side not being heard SCOTUS in their final brief went out of their way to note that the possession of firearms suitable for military service IS PROTECTED by the Second Amendment as an individual Right;

"Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments....


....shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,


....provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges....


....men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Far too long unAmerican Boneheads heads have been wrongly referring to Miller as a precedent for the government to control and/or ban any and all firearms. (Oh thats gonna leave a mark)

Listen up you dumbass Gumby claymation characters;

The inference by SCOTUS is if a short barreled shotgun is an instrument of the Militia then the Lower Court should find Miller not guilty this time and don't bother us with this bullshit again. (Ragons error ref: #3 & #5B above)

SCOTUS, in Miller, ONLY decided that taxation through registration of firearms primarily of the type used by Gangsters was Constitutional.

Get this through your dense F/Emasculated skulls;

NO WHERE IN ANY OF THE IMPORTANT ENACTMENTS HAS THERE EVER BEEN ENACTED A REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE PRIVATELY PURCHASED FIREARMS BE STORED IN A CENTRAL ARMORY.

What part of CONSTANTLY means where ever they went at all times don't you Airheads understand?

What part of IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME don't you boneheads understand?

Allow me to Clarify

In Fact "common use at the time" illustrates what visionaries the Founding Fathers really were.

They understood and had seen technological improvements in the production of firearms. They knew that further advancements would be made. To that end they wrote laws that would NOT HAVE TO BE CHANGED every time a better firearm was developed. the "common use at the time" requirement transcends time. (To deny this is to imply that the Founding Fathers were short sighted imbeciles)

• In the late 1700's - Common use at the time = Brown Bess Flintlock (The finest "assault weapon" of its day and practically every home had at least one of these "liberated" from the British rifles)
• It the early part of the 2000's - Common use at the time = M-16/AK-47/P-90/MP-5
  

Ouch, that's gonna leave a scar on your psyche isn't it??

The plain and simple truth is that men were required by law to purchase their own personal firearms that were to be of the same type as used by the Militia at that time.

IT WAS DEEMED TO BE NOT ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, IT IS WAS A LAW TO BE OBEYED.

SCOTUS understood that so thoroughly that they were compelled to include those statutory cites in their brief on Miller.

Wail, gnash your teeth and rend your clothing all you want but those historical references by SCOTUS prove conclusively that the Right is an individual one AND requires possession of Military type arms. (Bleeding from the ears yet?)

1. SCOTUS was asked and agreed to determine if a law requiring taxation by registration of firearms used by Gangsters was Constitutional. (They did that ref: #5A above)
2. SCOTUS was also asked to determine that the Second Amendment DID NOT apply to a short barrel shotgun. (This they COULD NOT do as it was not presented to them that a 'Sawed off shotgun IS or IS NOT an an instrument of the Militia/Military and they were NOT asked to make that determination. ref: #5B above)

The short barreled shotgun was used in World War I (prior to the Act that taxed it through registration in 1934 ref: #6 above) as an instrument of the Militia/Military. (It still is today)

I don't expect any of you head in the sand Girlyman idiots to understand this;

SCOTUS did not decide that the Second Amendment was a collective one and that only the Police and the Military could own Firearms suitable for use by the Militia. In fact the SCOTUS brief hints that THE ONLY firearms individuals have the Right to keep and bear are those that are instruments of the militia. (Damn that one had to hurt)

Sorry Boneheads but Miller is not the defining decision that prevents private citizens from owning Militia type firearms.

The lack of a decision in Miller by SCOTUS is the defining determination that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right of the People to keep and bear arm SUITABLE for Military Service.

Note; I have written on this in the past and was fortunate to discuss much of the above with Alan Gura (lawyer representing Heller in US v. Heller) back in October. Alan told me at that time that a number of Ivy league legal scholars that previously held opinions that the Second Amendment was a collective Right, have been re-evaluating their analysis and are now of the opinion that is an individual one.

What part of R I G H T do you not understand?

Neither a Government Entity nor the Agents of that Entity pursuant to their duties have Rights. They only have Powers to act in their official capacity granted to them by the People they represent.

Rights can ONLY be possessed and exercised by Individuals.

The Founding Fathers understood this implicitly when they authored the first ten amendments to the Constitution. (The Bill of Rights) Simply by virtue of birth humans beings possessed natural unalienable rights.

Do you understand that?

To claim their intention in the Bill of Rights was that only the 1st and 3rd through the 10th applied to individuals while the 2nd refers to the government is about as asinine as one can get. (To deny this is to imply that the Founding Fathers were short sighted imbeciles)

PLEASE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT SO LACKING IN INTELLIGENCE THAT YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THAT! PLEASE!

Maybe if you Girlymen hadn't spent so much time smoking pot, snorting coke, drinking and instead of skipping classes paid more attention to your Public School educators I would not have to to rub your nose in it. (Like a bad puppy in a pile shit)

But alas the bottom line is you don't have a clue.

Metrosexuals as a rule will always accept as Gospel the agenda driven Nanny State "womb to the tomb" rhetoric puked up by other Girlymen with an irrational fear of inanimate objects.

Speaking of inanimate objects tell me;

• When was the last time Your kids teddy Bear lifted his leg and pissed on the corner of the couch?
• 
  
• When was the last time your computer turned its self on (pun intended) and surfed for Porn? (Yea I know you got your wife/girlfriend convinced it happens, but ...)
• 
  
• When was the last time your motor vehicle took its self for a 500 mile joy ride? (Knight Rider was only a television show. KITT was not real)
  

Imagining these things while your stoned doesn't count.

Some of you people are so mentally deficient and uneducated that you just don't realize how mentally deficient and uneducated you really are.

Financial Liability for No Guns Allowed signs? GRPC Notes #3

Background

Chunk Klein, along with a few others successfully challenged the status quo on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Ohio several years ago. This challenge led to the passage of a concealed carry law in Ohio. Until that time there were no provisions for concealed carry in the Buckeye State and those that openly carried a sidearm were often charged with something akin to "disturbing the peace" or "inciting a panic". There was nearly no way a citizen in Ohio could legally exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms without running afoul of the law.

Ultimately the state Supreme Court ruled that those in power could not have it both ways;

No statutory allowance for concealed carry and punishment for open carry.

It had to be one or the other

Since there were no provisions in statute that recognized concealed carry without penalty, the only way for citizens to "legally" exercise their Right to bear arms was to openly carry them on their person and NOT be subject to arrest, punishment intimidation and harassment.

This decision amounted to a cease and desist order on Ohio law enforcement charging those who openly carried a sidearm for personal protection with a crime.

From that decision large numbers of Ohioans held "Open Carry Walks".

Right to Keep and Bear Arms supporters across the state held very peaceful walks, in major population centers, while openly carrying sidearms. These walks were informative and brought national attention to the issue. They were also heavily monitored by the many law enforcement agencies.

They Still didn't get it

While there were no overt acts by Peace Officers to prevent or intimidate the exercise of a pre-existing Right recognized in both the Ohio State and Federal Constitution there were several reports that citizens leaving the walks were singled out and covertly set upon by Peace Officers engaging in tactics of intimidation.

I do not believe that there were any arrests, but several citizens reported that after leaving the march they were singly accosted, detained and investigated for exercising a Right that the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio had recently affirmed.

Even someone that barely eked out a passing grade in a High School Government class should realize the implications of that action and be appalled by it.

What part of;

The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio mandated that the open carry of a firearm in the state of Ohio is a legal activity affirmed by the Ohio State Constitution.

did they not understand?

What those few officers did is the same as stopping a person for, "driving the speed limit", "properly using turn signal devices" or "making a complete stop at a stop sign/light".

As noted above the Supreme Court decision and the open Carry walks ultimately led to the passage of Concealed Carry in Ohio. A provision in the law, and in many other states as well, allows those responsible for private property to post signs that deny employees and consumers the ability to legally carry a firearm on their premises.

Although the Politically Correct term for these areas is "Gun-Free Zones", legally armed law-abiding citizens refer to them as "Victim-Disarmament Zones". The rightful conclusion is that since armed criminals by virtue of their job description do not obey the law the only people who comply are "defenseless law-abiding victims".

A Book on the Subject

Since that time Chuck Klein has written a book entitled "Guns in the Workplace", A Manual for Private Sector Employers and Employees.

It is not an understatement that this book should be read by everyone one that owns their own business. Additionally business owners should make it required ready for their entire Human Relations Departments if their business is large enough to require one.

As I have oft stated in the past, should I encounter a "No Firearms allowed sign" in my travels I, as a law abiding citizen, will respect the wishes of that management and not patronize their establishment.

It is not a protest or boycott on my part;

It is simply an expression of respect for the Rights of that property owner/manager and my own ethical standards on obeying the law.

Klein's book, edited by William M. Gustavson Esq., is an excellent "how to" manual for those that are struggling with the idea of employees and consumers legally carrying firearms on their property. The book carefully examines both sides of the decision to allow it or not.

The most interesting aspect that I gleaned from the book concerns the financial liability that a business may incur if they decide to prohibit the legal carry of firearms on their property.

Klein indicates that should harm occur that could have been prevented had that person been in possession of their legally carried firearm, the business could be financially liable in a civil action brought by that person or person/s survivors for failure to provide or allow for adequate protection.

In essence by denying a person, that is legally able to carry a firearm, from possession of a firearm on that property that business is acknowledging that they have assumed responsibility for the safety and protection of, not just the firearm owner but, all persons that either work or patronize the premises.

Klein writes that in some states statutes have been written "exempting" businesses from such liability when they declare their property a "Gun-FreeZone". He points out however that courts generally do not favorably view a for profit business being free from liability for intentionally restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to provide for their own safety and protection.

Klein goes on to reference the Federal Liability Statute (USC Title 42 , Chapter 21, Sub chapter 1) that;

...... causes to be subjected, any citizen or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proceedings for redress ...

In other words the federal law will trump the state law and businesses that post their properties relying solely on the state statute to protect them could still be liable for financial losses.

Intentional Acts are not covered by most Policies

This has led many to believe that we are covered by the "well that is what I have insurance for" axiom.

Again Klein cautions those responsible for making the "Gun-free Zone" decision to consider;

Most insurance policies have an exclusionary for "intentional acts" committed by those covered by the policy.

Preventing the exercise of a Right by a property owner/manager is an INTENTIONAL ACT.

If faced with a large monetary suit it would be reasonable to expect that any insurance company would divest themselves of any financial obligation by asserting that the covered party "intentionally" violated the terms of the policy. In this event, not only would the owner/manager be financing two law suits (one against themselves for deprivation of a right and the one they would need to bring against their insurance carrier for non-coverage/payment) any and all monetary cost/award would fall squarely on the assets of the policy holder.

Should the business, that the insurance company successfully bails on, be a corporation, limited liability or otherwise the business might be financially challenged or even ruined, but personal possessions of the owners might remain un-effected.

Conversely if the entity in question is a "Sole Proprietorship" or other "unprotected entity" any of the personal property assets of the owner, such as vehicles, jewelry, homes and other personal property would be subject to forfeiture and/or liens.

As evidenced by Chucks book there is important serious consideration that must be done by any property owner/manager when making the decision to post a property as a "Gun-Free Zone" or not.

As far as this issue is concerned I, and every law abiding firearms owner that I know, respect the decision whether it is to allow or deny. That is their Right.

I would suggest that anyone faced with the enormous responsibility of deciding this issue to not take it lightly, read Mr. Klein's book, consult jointly with legal counsel and insurance provider/s for advice and make the most responsible decision possible based on that information.

If that decision is to post "No Guns Allowed" signs and it is grounded in the best legal advice and a WRITTEN GUARANTEE OF COVERAGE conformation letter from an insurance provider then I will respect that.

Should the decision be to not post any signs at all or even post "Citizens legally carrying firearms welcome" signs (as some businesses do), I will respect that as well and show my appreciation for the recognition of a Right by patronizing the establishment.

As a final note I followed the progress of Klein's lawsuit and the resulting open carry walks when all of that took place. It was not until this years Gun Rights Policy Conference when Chuck was one of the featured speakers that I finally got to meet him.

The Logan Act; Food for thought

Separation of Powers

For years there has been a faction of the population that has called for a separation between church and state. What the Justice Department really needs to enforce is the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to determine and implement foreign policy.

It is the duty of the Legislative Branch to ratify by advice and consent or not treaties negotiated by the Executive Branch. It is also the duty of the Legislature to fund or not the foreign policies set forth by the Executive Branch.

It is not within the pervue of individual elected Representatives or private citizens to travel to and engage foreign Governments in dialogue or negotiations.

Logan Act

Violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. #953, known as the Logan Act is punishable by fine or up to three years imprisonment or both.

One would think that a person, especially one with many years of seniority, who has been elected to represent and serve the people would be familiar with this law.

Apparently this is not the case.

Recently a number of the Legislative Branches Senior elected Representatives have taken it upon themselves to travel to foreign countries and engage the leadership of those countries in dialogue and/or negotiations.

Lead by Example

United States Citizens by and large should expect that their elected Representatives follow the same laws that their constituencies are subject to, and accept the same consequences when they do not.

There has never been a conviction for violation of the Logan Act.

This is likely due to the position in society of those that have in fact broken the law. Since it generally involves someone of a differing political party or belief, genuine fear of a massive adverse public reaction has probably tempered the enforcement of the Logan Act.

The United States of America is at war.

In order to prevail in this war it must be left to the Executive Branch to determine, implement and negotiate policy with those countries that support the factions that America is at war with.

To do otherwise conveys a potential sign of weakness in the resolve to prosecute that war. When the Executive Branch, of which ever party is undermined by members of the Legislative Branch engaging in separate communications with these governments it sends a mixed message of division to the enemies of the United States. In the past a division such as this has been used to prolong a conflict, thus causing the unnecessary casualties for American Soldiers.

In order to successfully prosecute this, or any war, the United States must speak with one foreign policy voice and only one voice. Constitutionally that voice belongs to the Executive Branch of Government. The Legislative Branch can and should debate the merits of that voice in legislative session.

To do otherwise will only prolong the conflict and/or cause the needless deaths of American Soldiers.

And that is my Food for Thought

Roger Larson gets it wrong

Roger Larson provides commentary for local AM radio station 1400 KLIN. In a recent diatribe Larson disgorges an unusually large amount of bovine excrement even for him.

Hey Larson get your head out of your ass.

It is not the bill of needs.

What part of Right do you not understand?

One would think that at your age you would have a modicum of understanding concerning the Constitution and the Original ten amendments the "Bill of rights".

Roger let me educate you in some basic facts of history.

1. When the Constitution was penned there was no such thing as a "Sportsman" for the purpose of owning a firearm.

Sport hunting became a popular activity thanks primarily to the efforts of Conservationist and President Teddy Roosevelt in the late 1800's. Gee golly huck huck Roger that was 125 years after the Second Amendment was written wasn't it.

2. At that time every male of age (16 or older) was required to acquire at their own expense, maintain, become proficient with and report for duty with a firearm of suitable size and caliber.

Um ... ahhh ... Roger this may come as a shock to your delicate senses but "required to report with a firearm of suitable size and caliber acquired at ones own expense" would be an .... can you say ... assault weapon?

3. The only real organized "target shooting events" were held when the men were required to muster on the village green one Sunday afternoon a month.

4. Hunting was a necessity for survival, if a person didn't hunt his family didn't eat.

Roger put down the Kool-aid. Roger step away from the turd laden punch bowl.

Pay attention closely here Roger;

The Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with target shooting, hunting, or other sports type activities that require the use of firearms.

Taught in School

The purpose of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to serve their town, state and federal government in time of need, but to take up arms against that government should it deteriorate to a tyranny.

Roger do you understand that? I know they were teaching that when you went to school. They were still teaching that when I graduated from school more than 30 years ago.

Because they are

As for the "new" Firearms ownership Rights group you are touting there is a reason that the NRA is calling them a left-wing subversive group.

As for tying them to former President Clinton's attempt at banning some guns, well Roger you did that yourself when you pointed out that this new group makes the statement "No one needs an assault weapon."

The American Hunters and Shooters Association was exposed for the fraud that it is a long time ago Roger. Even a cursory check on the internet will inform even an "anti-gun keyboard kommando" of your ilk that the founders of this organization all come from anti-gun backgrounds.

I am not going to go into in-depth detail about the founders of this group and their backgrounds, that has adaquately been done in the past.

David Zincavage gives us the following admonition Don't be fooled.

American Hunters and Shooters Association head John E. Rosenthal founded the anti-gun group Stop Handgun Violence before he apparently "saw the light".

John Lott had the low down on this group well over a year ago. Before covering their tracks it was revealed that this group was started through the Democratic Leadership Council.

As a final note Larson ends his diatribes with "I'm Roger Larson, and that's the way I see it.

Well Roger I would suspect that if you instituted a cranial/rectal inversion, participated in a 12 step program for Kool-aid addiction and remember what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really means you might see it differently.

The Miller Truth Revisited

Forward

In my previous post I noted that a commenter to a Lincoln Journal Star Editorial seemingly did not understand the true significance of U.S. v. Miller.

Miller has been used by the anti-gun panty-waists for decades to infer that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual Right and that it only applies to the National Guard.

Since I have read and studied the "Miller Decision" extensively I have always failed to see the merit to that claim. At the end of this treatise there is a link to all of the documents that emanated from that case.

After reading it completely I also fail to see how anyone of average intelligence can make the claim that the Court held the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is anything but an individual Right.

In the Beginning

In September 1938 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were re-indicted for transporting a "Sawed-off" shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas in violation of the National Firearms act of 1934.

Although Miller and Layton originally plead guilty, Federal Judge Heartsill Ragon on hearing the case suggested that they change their plea and appointed them representation.

Miller and Laytons attorney filed a demurrer to the indictment holding that the law under which they were charged was according to the Second Amendment unconstitutional. Judge Ragon agreed and so ruled.

The Governments Reacts

The prosecution in the personage of Clinton R. Barry et. al. appealed Judge Ragons decision to the United States Supreme Court. Barry's premise, was based on two parts;

• 1. That the National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibiting possesses of certain weapons without an appropriate tax stamp was Constitutional and,
• 2. That a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon only used by gangsters and desperadoes and had no legitimate use as a military/militia and/or weapon.

Barry also cited English Common laws dating back to the 1300's that forbade "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" as proof that regulation of the "Right to Keep and Bear arms is permissible.

Authors Note: Barrys main assertion on English Common Law holds that "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" assumes that people are/were terrified simply at the sight of such weapons. This was not the case "to the terror of the people" meant that the person possessing a dangerous or unusual weapon was threatening to use said weapon on or against specific individual/s. Possession is not a terroristic act, threatening to actually use it to the harm or death of an other was.

Barry incorrectly avers that pre-existence of the Rights retained by the people in the Second Amendment began only when those Rights were conferred to the people by English Royalty.

Barrys other assertion that the short-barreled shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military/militia use belies the fact that "Sawed-off" shotguns were used with much success by American forces in World-War I.


As was the original demurrer by Miller and Laytons attorney and Barrys subsequent appeal two in part so was the majority remand written by Justice James Clark McReynolds.

Authors Note: Miller and Layton were not represented during oral arguments before the Supreme Court, only the Government was present to make itself heard.

The Supreme Courts Speaks

In the first part as to whether the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional the Court issued the following statement;

...the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

Authors Note: In plain English they said the act was constitutional in that it did not effect powers reserved to the States.

Concerning part two of the matter before them the majority cited numerous references in early American law;

"Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs

....shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

...provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."

...that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The Misunderstanding of Miller

Authors Note: This is where Miller has been so often misquoted and misunderstood. The Supreme Court clearly recognized that personal possession and acquisition of military/militia type firearms was not only protected by the Second Amendment, but laws stemming from it, enacted by the states actually required it.

The Court further stated that;


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.

Authors Note: The Court essentially said that you did not tell us that a short-barreled shotgun is or is not an instrument of the militia and we were not asked to determine such. The importance of that statement is the inference that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. They wrote they could not say the Second Amendment Guaranteed the Right to Keep and Bear that one specific firearm.

Since, as I noted earlier that the "Sawed-off shotgun", "Trench gun", "Ally Sweeper" was so successfully used during World War I it is clearly more than a tool used only by gangsters and deparados avered by Barry. This statement by the High Court implies that had information been provided that the firearm in question has a legitimate purpose as an instrument of the militia they would have "decided" in Millers favor.

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Authors Note: In their "decision" the Supreme Court did "decide" that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was not unconstitutional.

They DID NOT conclude that the Second Amendment was a Collective Right as many claim. They DID remand the case back to Judge Ragons Court to determine whether a "sawed-off shotgun" was a suitable instrument of the militia. Since Miller was not represented in oral argument before the court the Justice's in their opinion appear to have actually taken Millers side. Instead they remanded the case back to Ragon, a highly unusual move considering that Millers attorney was not present when the case was heard. They ordered Judge Ragon to rehear the case and determine whether the short barreled shotgun was an instrument of the militia.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court "decision" on Miller emanated from their October 1938 Term. In April of 1939 prior to the remanded further proceedings by the Supreme Court Miller was murdered.

With Millers death the case died as well and the re-hearing ordered by the Supreme Court never took place.

Authors Note: Had Judge Ragon reheard the case and determined that the firearm in question was in fact a legitimate instrument of the militia on any re-application to the Supreme Court Miller would not be the controversy it is today. This reasonable inference is made based on Judge Ragons actions at the very beginning, as a Judge he advised Miller and Layton to withdraw their guilty pleas and appointed them legal counsel. Judge Ragon did not find Miller or Layton guilty or not guilty, he only ruled on a demurrer that the law under which they were charged was unconstitutional. That left the door open for Clinton Barry to appeal. The Supreme Court simply ordered that, because the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional Miller and Layton be re-charged and taken to trial. Had Judge Ragon held a trial and issued a likely not guilty verdict in the original instance the double jeopardy requirements of the Constitution would have never allowed it to get to the Supreme Court in the first place.

The "determination" that the Supreme Court ordered never took place. In that regard for all intents and purposes Miller is still an open case and until some court specifically rules that a "short barreled shotgun IS or IS NOT a suitable instrument of the military/militia Miller will never have been "decided".

Final note: All bold text is the product of this author for emphasis. I would also like to thank Patrick L. Aultice for much of the information that I relied on for this narrative. Pat has compiled in one place the most complete work on Miller as may exist.

He has published all of the official court documents relating to U.S. v. Miller on the internet and they can be read by anyone in their entirety here.

Yes they do want to ban your "Bullets"

Background

In the previous post I mentioned the renewal of the "Clinton Gun Ban". Most intelligent people know that the original law really didn't "ban" any firearms, well maybe with the notable exception of a Gawd awful ungangly and ugly short barreled shotgun.

What it really did was prohibit certain cosmetic features or combinations of features that some found objectionable; Pistol Grips, Flash Suppressors, Bayonets and limit magazine capacities to a maximum of 10 rounds.

There was no compelling reason for the number 10 as to magazine capacity, it was a number the gun grabbers thought they could get passed without much difficulty. It has also been rumored that the number 10 was the brain child of Bill Ruger, Head of Ruger Firearms.

As a side note the law seemed to be effective in one way,to my knowledge during the entire ten years it was in effect there was not one single drive-by bayoneting.

Bullets and Body Armor

Some time ago I penned a treatise on a proposed ban on a specific firearm; the Five-seveN.

In that article I pointed out that the fine print of the law would also ban any ammunition capable of being used in a handgun that would penetrate Body Armor.

To protect the Nation's law enforcement officers by banning the Five-seveN Pistol and 5.7 x 28mm SS190 and SS192 cartridges, testing handguns and ammunition for capability to penetrate body armor, and prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, or purchase of such handguns or ammunition by civilians.

The above language is the statement of intent as to the scope of the law. Note that the first part of that statement creates an outright ban on the Five-seveN. It is the second part that should have the hackles up on every single gun owner in the United States. It calls for testing of ALL handguns and ammunition. Any of those handguns and/or ammunition that are found to penetrate body armor will be banned from manufacture, sale and purchase by CIVILIANS.

That ban would have included just about every single rifle cartridge used by Big Game Hunters in the United States.

Section 3 Armor Piercing Ammunition, calls for an expansion of the definition of armor piercing ammunition to include;

(iii) a projectile that--

(I) may be used in a handgun; and

(II) the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor.'.

(b) Determination of Capability of Projectiles to Penetrate Body Armor- Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ............

Think not?

How many of the Thompson Center Contenders barrels have been chambered in rifle calibers? The Contender is considered a handgun and interchangeable barrels in calibers like the .223, 22-250, .243, 7mm08, 30-30, 45-70 to name just a few have been around for years.

According to that proposed law it doesn't even have to have ever been chambered in a handgun, only that it could.

Do you understand that? If the AG decides it can penetrate body armor you can't have it.

I defy anyone to show me a rifle caliber that has not already been used or could be determined by an anti-gun Attorney General as a "may be used in a handgun" cartridge.

Understand this, body armor worn by Police Officers and the Military for that matter was not designed to stop high power center fire rifle ammunition. Most of the armor worn by cops and soldiers will stop most handgun ammunition but it was never intended or designed to stop rifle rounds.

Ted Kennedy's Ammunition Ban

A few years ago in an action separate from the Five-seveN fiasco the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts Ted Kennedy tried to push a law through the Senate that would prohibit from sale and possession any caliber of ammunition that would penetrate the body armor worn by our Nations Police Community.

That prohibition would have and was intended to (and will when it is revived) include the most popular deer hunting cartridges on the market today, the 30-30, 308, 30-06, 270, 7mm mag, 300 Win Mag and all those fancy new Winchester Short Mags that a lot of you own and swear by.

Did I call out your favorite caliber there? No?

Don't worry even if I didn't don't think your safe. If it has the same power rating or higher of any of those that I did mention you may be able to keep your firearm, but you most certainly will not be able to buy any more ammo for it.

Okay now some of you will screw your empty little airheads a little deeper in the sand and tell everyone the Ole Gunscribe is off his rocker and crying wolf just because the Libs now have the majority in both houses.

Ask yourself this and answer it honestly;

These proposed laws are real and a matter of public record. The anti-gun grabbers wrote and tried to pass when they held the minority in both houses.

What in hell makes you think they will not resurrect these measures now that they have the majority?

The truth and every one of you that reads this knows it; is that the anti-gun grabbers will bring these proposals back and they will do their damnedest to make them law.

Unless all firearms owners en masse put and keep pressure on our Federally elected Officials some if not all of these proposals will become law.