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.

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.

Regurgitation of a non issue

News must be slow in the Capital city.

Recently the Lincoln Journal Star in an anonymous "editorial" stoked the fires of Concealed Carry again.

The Journal Star and countless others are acting as though Nebraska is the first State to enact such a law. They have their heads in the sand or are conveniently ignoring that this has been the norm in a majority of states for the last 20 to 100 years or more.

It begs the question

Since a majority of the 50 states have already been down this road and there has not ever been the shootouts over parking spaces or blood running in the streets the naysayers predicted, why is it the Journal Star Staff and others think Nebraska will be the exception?

They want my money but they consistently imply that because I own firearms I am, not to be trusted, irresponsible and a menace to society.

What is it that they seem to know about their fellow Cornhuskers that makes them think we are not as responsible and well meaning as the residents of the rest of the states that have had concealed carry laws for years? That is one reason I do not take a home subscription to the LJS.

A third choice

The LJS editorial points out two choices;

But suppose a gun-toter wants to shop in a store that sports the no-guns sign. If a crook can’t tell who’s packing, how can the shopkeeper tell if the citizen takes a gun in anyway? And if the citizen dutifully leaves his gun in his car, what a lucky break for a crook who has only to smash a window to add to his arsenal.

• Choice one - Disobey the sign and carry anyway.
• Choice two - Leave the firearm in the vehicle when entering a posted business.

What LJS fails to mention and should be considered by businesses worried about their bottom line is the third choice that a number of legal Concealed Carriers will opt for;

• Choice three - Refusal to patronize any business that posts a sign.

Choice three is the one I will avail myself of. It is a businesses right to permit whom they wish in their premises and I will repsect that. Respect is a two way street, if a business does not respect my decision to maintain the lawful ability to protect myself and my family I will not spend my money there.

Personally I think that if someone leaves their firearm in a vehicle because a business is posted and that persons firearm is stolen while they are patronizing that business then the owners/managers of that business should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm. In the least they should be able to be sued in civil court by the victims of crimes committed with a firearm that was stolen from their parking lot.

In its infinite wisdom the LJS points out;

The fact that most law-enforcement agencies have distanced themselves from the law should tell us something about its potential for danger.

Danger?? Show me the danger

Police administrations distance themselves from laws like this because it will effect their bottom line budget. Every year police administrations request additional funds to bolster their budgets under the pretense of protecting the public. For years police administrators have deluded the public into thinking they (the police department) are the sole responsibility for the citizens safety. The only danger is to their bottom line.

To many Sheeple in this country have been brainwashed into thinking that the Police are suppose to be at their beck and call for any little snit that they find themselves in.

News flash Sheeple;

Police agencies are under no legal obligation to protect you as an individual.

Police agencies exist to serve the public as a whole i.e. clearing traffic accidents, quelling riots or public disturbances, and investigating crimes.

Police Officers for the most part can not prevent crimes. Rarely are police officers at the scene of a crime before or as it is happening. For the most part they (through no fault of their own) show up after the fact.

Yes they will put out an all points for your SUV that was hijacked from your wife with your 18 month old baby in the back. Yes they will see that your daughter gets a rape kit and adequate medical attention when they find her bruised body in a back alley. Yes they will see that you get to the hospital when a couple of thugs rough you up and take your wallet because "you stayed at Tulley's Bar too long again".

The cold hard fact is when you need them most they won't be there. For those critical moments you are on your own, what you do may mean life or death.

Oh and if you can get a call through and they don't show up in your definition of a timely manner or your call slips through the cracks and they don't show at all?

Don't even think about suing them.

That has been tried before countless times in countless states and the result has always been the same;

Police Officers are under no legal obligation to protect citizens as individuals only society as a whole.

The only people the police are by law required to protect is those that they have a "special relationship" with. A 'special relationship" is generally held to be a person "in custody".

No an Order of Protection does not qualify as a "special relationship".

Try this;

Call the local police department and tell them a person you have an order against just called you and said they are on their way over to kill you.

The response will generally be something to the effect of;

"We're sorry Mr/Mrs Citizen but we can't do anything until the person actually shows up at your residence. Call us back when he/she gets there."

Want to know how many 911 recordings there are where the caller was assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered on tape while the police were "in route"?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not one single Police Officer I know that won't put his or her life on the line to come to your aid. I know for a fact that they do it because it is in their heart and not their bank account. For what they do Peace Officers have an under paid and under appreciated lot in life.

The way it is

What the average citizen need to understand is that no matter how much police officers may want to be they can not be there when you are assaulted, robbed, raped or worse. They just have no way of knowing your in trouble until the incident is over and then all they can do is respond and help pick up the pieces. It is a fact of life, deal with it.

US v. Miller

One the commenter's to the "editorial" on-line referenced US v. Miller. Miller the most misunderstood actions ever taken by the US Supreme Court. It is touted as the "Miller Decision" and I can deduce that the commenter has never actually read it. In Miller the Supreme Court decided nothing. That's right zip, zilch, nada, nothing.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) remanded the case back to the lower court because it wasn't given notice that a "short-barreled shotgun was firearm in use by the Militia. By it's own writing if SCOTUS had been given notice that such a firearm was in use by the military they would have decided in Millers favor.

After it was remanded back to the lower court and before further action could be taken in his defense Miller died.

Those of you that so handily quote Miller in error should do yourselves the favor of reading it instead of relying on what somebody else tells them it means. Then at least you won't appear to be so ignorant when you open your mouth and remove all doubt.