10 Comments

I may be reading this the wrong way, but couldn’t US vs Miller be used to have the Federal Assault Rifle Ban overthrown if it is ever brought back? The entire idea behind Miller is that a short barreled shotgun has no military application. To me this says that a gun has to have a military application in order to be protected under the Second Amendment. If this is true, then a protected gun would have to be compairable with military issued guns. Kind of shoots the Assault Weapon law in the foot doesn’t it?

So I guess since I have been prosecuted because I had A fake non-functional plastic silencer that the military or anyone with half a brain would know that it was just a novalty and is no way capable of functioning, it might be compairable with kindergarten standards however…I guess if it looks like a silencer…it must realy be one!!!

I am now a felon and have been stripped of all my rights and firearms because of a kids toy!!! its only application was to ammuse kids….hell you can buy them anywhere. This whole ordeal has gone on for two years now and is still not over because of a toy that could not harm a plastic G.I. joe action figure…

this has been so bizzare and wroung!!! I have never commited a crime in my life! If it was a real silencer I guess I would have had a better chance in court… This is only the begining of this screwed up crap I have gone through and can not believe it!!!

there needs to be some serious reform in the In-justice system !!! And people need to get some common scence!!! and quit getting brain washed by the media, Hell I am glad they
caught me with it…If they caught my son playing with it….The police would have probably shot him!!!! If I were to ever do A crime I would I would deserve what ever sentance I would recive!!! The only crime I commited was playing with my son and the neighbor kids and I looked to old to be running around with a toy weapon, so It must have been a real weapon!!!! I guess the police are hero’s now, they saved my sons G.I joe that I was killing with plastic bee-bee’s

I want to know how the hell, and who I can contact to get this story known!!!
I mean I have documentation!witnesses…This realy happened to me!!! No one will touch this story because some people in the legal industry will be unemployed!!! I know for a fact that legal documents were tampered with, And evidance destroyed to cover thier tracks!!! SO WHO’S the Real criminal ??? ANY ADVISE… I am even thinking about making a movie about this crazy event.
Truth is more bizzare than fiction…..WOW …I am not letting this go!!!

And I dont want to sue anyone for A dime, I want a public defender that did nothing, fired and dis-barred, And I want a very biassed, anti-gunner of a judge that the attorny I did hire said “he would not go in front of her in court because I would atomatically lose” because He had issues in the past with her …The best attorny I could buy, told me “of all the judges in this town, you got her…YOUR SCREWED!” that was real comforting! so I got a court-appoint that would go in front of her,probably working for her doing “FAVORS”……. I want to know how to expose this and have these people that could care less about your rights,just generating revenue!!!!

Removed from there seats!!!

Jim,

The answer to your question is, “Yes,” assuming the Parker case is heard and affirmed by the Supreme Court. If the right to keep and bear arms that bear an application to service in a militia is upheld as an individual right, then possession of virtually all arms that are effectively used by a militiaman should be protected.

That logically includes pistols, bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles and even fully automatic weapons. It probably excludes heavy weapons like tanks and artillery.

That will scare a lot of gun-control advocates, but I see nothing wrong with it. Let the gub’ment have the burden of proving that a compelling state interest exists to disarm the people before such a right can be infringed. That will put the Second Amendment on even footing with the First, as it should be.

Jim, except that the made-up category of “assault weapons” are not military weapons. They are semi-auto rifles that look similar to military full-automatic assault rifles.

Jim, except that the made-up category of “assault weapons” are not military weapons. They are semi-auto rifles that look similar to military full-automatic assault rifles (“machine guns” to the layman). If you follow the logic that appears to have driven the Miller decision, and definitely did drive the Parker decision, then full-auto assault rifles, semi-auto pistols, and sniper rifles (from the Barret .50’s on out to semi-auto and bolt action .30 calibers, with scopes) might be regulated a bit to make it harder for criminals and insane people to get them, but can’t be regulated in a way that keeps most people from getting them. Less powerful weapons than these modern military issue arms are a question mark…

I just don’t think the Supreme Court is going to rule quite that way, though. “Machine guns sold in Walmart?”

E-bell,

When the founders were writing the Bill of Rights, there were individuals using their own private cannons in the Revolutionary War.

No private tanks? That’s not what the men who WROTE the Constitution and Bill of Rights would have said…

Deoxy,

I’ve heard that argument before, but I’m not so sure that cannons meet the definition of “arms,” in the parlance of the Framers. And I don’t think the Supreme Court would go so far as to revisit their ruling in Miller to determine that “arms” mean anything more than rifles and pistols.

See, e.g., This page at guncite.com (scroll to bottom, with a link to an alternative view) seems to indicate that “arms” meant conventional firearms and cannons were considered “ordnance.”

short barreled shotguns not military issue? Better talk to your local vietnam vet. I have to admit that a .50 cal with depleted uranium rounds has more impact though.

ven if cannons were considred “ordnance” instead of “arms”, it’s a GREAT example of what the men who wrote the second Amendment considered “normal”. Private ownership of cannons bothered them not one bit.

True enough, Deoxy. The high cost of ownership of today’s “ordnance,” would likely keep the riff-raff from obtaining them and causing problems for the rest of us. I would have no problem in legalizing private ownership of howitzers, tanks and F-16s (if it’s already illegal – I have no idea, but something tells me that with enough influence you could legally obtain anything).

Cecil, it’s important to note that the Miller case did not decide that a short-barreled shotgun didn’t have a military application. The Court ordered the District Court to figure that out. It was never determined, as one of the defendants died and the other copped a plea.