http://mobile.nj.com/advnj/pm_29225/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=j0D8rbX4

Opinions: Civilians have no rights to assault weapons Times of Trenton guest opinion column 01/02/2013 6:52 AM

 

 

By Chris Ziegler

 

The landmark case District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment upholds an individual’s right to possess a firearm. Contrary to popular opinion, this is actually a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

The Amendment, which is one of the most awkwardly written sentences in American history, has always been fraught with ambiguity. Traditionally, the Court had ruled in cases such as United States vs. Miller (1939) that the Amendment’s first clause, about “a well regulated Militia,” expressed its true purpose. In Heller, however, Justice Scalia was able to convince the Court that the Amendment’s second clause, about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” trumped the first clause, and that the word “people” somehow refers to individuals rather than to a militia or a collective.

 

Since anyone interested in reforming gun laws will have to deal with the parameters set by this decision for at least the foreseeable future, it may be instructive to review what was written in the majority opinion.

 

Here is what Scalia, perhaps the most conservative justice in modern American history, wrote: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 

In other words, not only did the Heller decision come within one vote of rejecting the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but, even in establishing that right, it left the door wide open for gun control and regulation. Scalia had to perform linguistic gymnastics to accommodate the long-standing assumption of the NRA that the Second Amendment gives civilians, unconnected with any militia, the right to personal gun ownership. However, nothing in his decision precludes an outright ban on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. In fact, the Court seemed to invite it, writing in its official judgment that, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

I would like to restate this point for some of our fellow Americans who, in the wake of a massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., are so quick to defend their access to assault weapons: The Second Amendment “is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

Usually, we acknowledge that there must be reasonable limits to our rights. The First Amendment grants us the right to free speech, for example, but we do not have the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, because that would endanger the safety of others. The First Amendment also grants us freedom of the press, but we have laws against libel that prevent a newspaper from printing lies that could harm someone’s reputation.

 

In each of these cases, we acknowledge that our rights reach a limit once they begin to pose a threat to someone else. But for some reason, certain Americans believe their Second Amendment rights should be exempted from this rule.

 

Furthermore, none of these self-imposed limits create a “slippery slope” leading to the repeal of the whole right. Laws against libel and slander were not a “slippery slope” to the end of free speech or freedom of the press. Subpoenaing Catholic priests suspected of child molestation was not a “slippery slope” to the end of freedom of religion. Why, then, in the wake of a mass shooting, do some Americans cry that any reasonable gun control, such as banning assault weapons, would cause a slippery slope toward tyranny?

 

We already have heavy restrictions on automatic weapons in this country. What is rarely discussed, however, is that, today, semi-automatics are actually more deadly than automatics. First: Because of high-capacity clips, an assault weapon can fire almost as rapidly as a machine gun. And second: Machine guns, while capable of spraying bullets very quickly, are not very accurate. An assault rifle, however, can hit a target with deadly accuracy.

 

Emergency room doctors and nurses can immediately tell whether a gun victim was shot by a handgun or semi-automatic: A handgun will make a bullet hole; a wound from a semi-automatic looks like a bomb exploded inside the person. A bullet from an assault weapon travels three times faster than a handgun bullet and is designed to shatter upon impact. This is because they are military weapons intended to do maximum damage to a human body. They are not designed for hunting or self-defense.

 

There is absolutely no right to assault weapons in the Constitution. The fanatical and erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment that would claim otherwise is a direct threat to the freedom we cherish. It is a direct threat to our children.

 

 

 

 

Just for giggles here..fast forward to the part where "handguns cause a hole, semi automatics look like a bomb went off...another wannabe jounalist looking to make a name writes misinformation which if actually checked for accuracy by an editor would probably get the writer fired..

http://mobile.nj.com...ntguid=j0D8rbX4

Opinions: Civilians have no rights to assault weapons Times of Trenton guest opinion column 01/02/2013 6:52 AM

 

 

By Chris Ziegler

 

The landmark case District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment upholds an individual’s right to possess a firearm. Contrary to popular opinion, this is actually a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

The Amendment, which is one of the most awkwardly written sentences in American history, has always been fraught with ambiguity. Traditionally, the Court had ruled in cases such as United States vs. Miller (1939) that the Amendment’s first clause, about “a well regulated Militia,” expressed its true purpose. In Heller, however, Justice Scalia was able to convince the Court that the Amendment’s second clause, about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” trumped the first clause, and that the word “people” somehow refers to individuals rather than to a militia or a collective.

 

Made me think of this:

 

http://youtu.be/Oz5o1qEB5ok

So, who wants to write the article in response to this showing how little and inaccurate this guys opinion is??

 

 

Made me think of this:

 

http://youtu.be/Oz5o1qEB5ok

Thats a pretty damn good explanation that even the most narrow minded looney could understand..didnt know those guys were pro 2a..nice to see

We should call for regulations on the 1a. Freedom of press must back there claims and include factual evidence.

Usually, we acknowledge that there must be reasonable limits to our rights. The First Amendment grants us the right to free speech, for example, but we do not have the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, because that would endanger the safety of others. The First Amendment also grants us freedom of the press, but we have laws against libel that prevent a newspaper from printing lies that could harm someone’s reputation.

 

In each of these cases, we acknowledge that our rights reach a limit once they begin to pose a threat to someone else. But for some reason, certain Americans believe their Second Amendment rights should be exempted from this rule.

 

Furthermore, none of these self-imposed limits create a “slippery slope” leading to the repeal of the whole right. Laws against libel and slander were not a “slippery slope” to the end of free speech or freedom of the press. Subpoenaing Catholic priests suspected of child molestation was not a “slippery slope” to the end of freedom of religion. Why, then, in the wake of a mass shooting, do some Americans cry that any reasonable gun control, such as banning assault weapons, would cause a slippery slope toward tyranny?

 

So this dumb-ass is too stupid to understand that there is no prior restraint to the first amendment in that you can indeed yell fire in a movie theater or libel and slander someone, the law merely punishes one for those offences after the fact much like the charge of murder. What an idiot.

The only thing worth reading on NJ.COM are the peoples comments after the stories.

Thats a pretty damn good explanation that even the most narrow minded looney could understand..didnt know those guys were pro 2a..nice to see

 

Penn Jillette is an atheist and a very big libertarian. BTW if you have never seen the full episode of Gun Control is bs look for it, it's great.

 

http://youtu.be/XvmnJDcky24

There is so much factually wrong with that opinion I don't know where to start. But here:

 

The landmark case District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment upholds an individual’s right to possess a firearm. Contrary to popular opinion, this is actually a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

Um, no. Individual right interpretation dates far back before the constitution, before even the founding of the United States, and is found in English common law dating back 400+ years. The second amendment was penned to guarantee that right to US persons. One good bit of evidence is found in Justice Taney's opinion in the horrid Dred Scott case:

 

<finding in favor of Dred Scot for rights would.....)

It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

 

Only in the mid 20th century was the novel theory of a collective right put forth.

 

----

 

Usually, we acknowledge that there must be reasonable limits to our rights. The First Amendment grants us the right to free speech, for example, but we do not have the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, because that would endanger the safety of others. The First Amendment also grants us freedom of the press, but we have laws against libel that prevent a newspaper from printing lies that could harm someone’s reputation.

 

Two points - The right is not granted but guaranteed by the constitution. But more: yes we have laws against libel, but these do not prevent libel, they punish it. Get the difference? One would be a prior restraint on a liberty, such as criminalizing possession of printing presses would. Punishing harmful behavior such as printing damaging lies does not.

 

---

 

We already have heavy restrictions on automatic weapons in this country. What is rarely discussed, however, is that, today, semi-automatics are actually more deadly than automatics. First: Because of high-capacity clips, an assault weapon can fire almost as rapidly as a machine gun. And second: Machine guns, while capable of spraying bullets very quickly, are not very accurate. An assault rifle, however, can hit a target with deadly accuracy.

 

Did the author just argue that semi-autos are more deadly than machine guns? Maybe we can get automatic weapons removed from NFA regulation because they are safer.

 

---

Emergency room doctors and nurses can immediately tell whether a gun victim was shot by a handgun or semi-automatic: A handgun will make a bullet hole; a wound from a semi-automatic looks like a bomb exploded inside the person.

 

um, rifle. Is more powerful than handgun.

 

A bullet from an assault weapon travels three times faster than a handgun bullet and is designed to shatter upon impact.

 

um, rifle. Is more powerful than handgun.

 

This is because they are military weapons intended to do maximum damage to a human body. They are not designed for hunting or self-defense.

 

um, rifle. hunting, home defense, defense against mob violence, defender and symbol of liberty.

 

----

 

There is absolutely no right to assault weapons in the Constitution. The fanatical and erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment that would claim otherwise is a direct threat to the freedom we cherish. It is a direct threat to our children.

 

Um, no. Wrong. "Assault weapon" is a made-up term designed specifically to evince fear in ignorant people and to promote gun confiscation as policy.

 

The US vs Miller case clarified that second amendment arms are those suitable to use by militia - equal to the load out of the common soldier. The United State Attorneys (who won the case against miller), argued several points, including this one:

 

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

 

---

 

Guy's clueless.

Hey, unclenunzie.....tell him, not us.

I just did.

The US vs Miller case clarified that second amendment arms are those suitable to use by militia - equal to the load out of the common soldier. The United State Attorneys (who won the case against miller), argued several points, including this one:

 

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

 

Question there. If US vs. Miller ruled that way then how is the NFA not unconstitutional? Assuming "Organized Militia" == National Guard or Reserves then the public should have access to almost anything.

 

Not arguing for or against such an interpretation, just curious why it hasn't been interpreted that way.

The only thing worth reading on NJ.COM are the peoples comments after the stories.

 

It's a welcome ray of sunshine in this shit storm

I just did.

 

Write an opinion piece for nj.com

 

Question there. If US vs. Miller ruled that way then how is the NFA not unconstitutional? Assuming "Organized Militia" == National Guard or Reserves then the public should have access to almost anything.

 

Not arguing for or against such an interpretation, just curious why it hasn't been interpreted that way.

 

Basically Miller said that a sawed-off shotgun was not covered by the second amendment because it was not ordinary military equipment thus insinuating the inverse which would imply military weapons would be. I have been waiting for an attorney to make this point in defending an "assault weapon" case for a long time now.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu.../millervus.html

 

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.

[/size][/font][/color][/b]

 

Question there. If US vs. Miller ruled that way then how is the NFA not unconstitutional? Assuming "Organized Militia" == National Guard or Reserves then the public should have access to almost anything.

 

Not arguing for or against such an interpretation, just curious why it hasn't been interpreted that way.

 

Because when Miller was ruled, NFA was just a tax, not a limited registry.

Basically Miller said that a sawed-off shotgun was not covered by the second amendment because it was not ordinary military equipment thus insinuating the inverse which would imply military weapons would be. I have been waiting for an attorney to make this point in defending an "assault weapon" case for a long time now.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu.../millervus.html

 

I'm pretty sure that the US military, Federal agencies and state and local police departments are the #1 buyers of short barrel shotguns manufactured in the US. It's just the hoi polloi who need to jump through hoops to buy one. (I'm not sure if these are 16" or 18.5", they're identified as 16".)

 

I'm pretty sure that the US military, Federal agencies and state and local police departments are the #1 buyers of short barrel shotguns manufactured in the US. It's just the hoi polloi who need to jump through hoops to buy one. (I'm not sure if these are 16" or 18.5", they're identified as 16".)

 

 

The problem was, if you read the history of the decision, the only arguments heard were from the government.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2]

 

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.

2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.

3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

 

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendere.

 

As the decision states "In the absence of evedence..." No one brought the use of short barreled shot guns (including the blunderbuss) by the military from the Revolution through the Civil War and even into World War I because there were no arguements presented by Miller or Layton's attorneys.

Posted Today, 06:40 AM

 

The problem was, if you read the history of the decision, the only arguments heard were from the government.

 

 

You're right.

 

I should never read something and then post a comment about it before drinking my coffee!

You're right.

 

I should never read something and then post a comment about it before drinking my coffee!

 

I understand and we forgive you. Don't let it happen again! Uncaffeinated posting gets me in trouble all the time. LOL

Change some words and you have this:

 

http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-modest-proposal.html

Seems like a number of people are starting to put McDonald, Heller and Miller together now that the threat of a new ban looms. Good deal!

 

http://publiusonline...rt-contributor/

 

If the description modern infantry guns sounds familiar, it should. They are the very weapons at the top of the list that certain members of congress want to ban. But, they are also the very guns called out by the philosophy of Miller, as protected by the Second Amendment]

The problem was, if you read the history of the decision, the only arguments heard were from the government.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

 

 

As the decision states "In the absence of evedence..." No one brought the use of short barreled shot guns (including the blunderbuss) by the military from the Revolution through the Civil War and even into World War I because there were no arguements presented by Miller or Layton's attorneys.

 

By the time the case was heard, Miller was Dead IIRC

So a type of rifle that has been in existence, owned, and available for purchase by the law abiding US population aka "semi automatic rifles" for about 100 years , is all of a sudden something that we "the people" do not have a right to own any longer.

 

The terrible truth that these gun ban folks do not want to fess up to is that ANY type of gun in the hands of the criminally insane has the capacity to inflict terrible harm. Whether it be handguns, shotguns, rifles, semi-auto or not. The real problem to solve is keeping ANY gun out of the hands of those people who have demonstrated that they are not fit to freely exercise their rights.

 

Of course that problem is a difficult one to solve, so they go after inanimate objects and law abiding folks instead... they are easier targets.