Can someone help me with some of this:

[vis-à-vis]

I am over on another message board and we are discussing gun control in light of VT rampage. We are getting into the area of Miller and what not. I have to leave for work and I am not fully up to speed. But here is the thread

Here is the particular post (80 or so):

I knew when this happened that folks would end up talking about gun control. I've studied this issue and it's clear from the 1936 Suprem Court decision Miller vs. US that the Second Amendment does not conscern an individual right to own firearms but refers to a "well-regualed militia" (you know that part everyone forgets!). A "well-regulated militia" is our current National Guard and NOT some guy with a private handgun.

Therefore the government is entirely within it's rights to regulate private firearm ownership. I generally think it should be a state issue, but I don't feel more guns equal more security. For example, every Iraqi household is allowed to have an AK-47, so by the NRA's logic Iraq should be a very safe place!

Me:

Not entirely accurate. The Miller case did not come out with that. Miller got in trouble for having a sawed off shotgun which violated the 1934 National Firearms Act. See by the time Miller went to the Supreme Court the poor farmer from Oklahoma or wherever didn't have adequate legal counsel. One of the statements from the court implies (and the Miller decision was vague enough for both sides to claim victory--odd eh? So its not "clear") that if a weapon has militia value, then it is lawful to be owned. But what Millers attorney wasn't smart enough to point out was that his sawed off shotgun has militia value and was used in World War I for trench clearing.

If you view the latest DC Federal Court ruling (and this THE court directly under the Supreme Court) it uses Miller to support the individual right to bear arms. The Militia clause is a prefatory statement and one's membership in a miltia (organized or unorganized--the National Guard was formally created in 1900 something) has no bearing on "the right of the individual to keep and bear arms."

The Mayor of DC is appealing the ruling. No matter what the en banc appeal concludes, its going to go to the supreme court.

Am I accurate? Anyways, if you could register and start educating people, I'd be obliged.

 

[nobody_special]

It's worth pointing out that no defense was presented for Miller. It's likely that Miller himself was already dead (he was found dead not long thereafter, anyway), and his lawyer did not argue the case before the Supreme Court.

 

[NukemJim]

IANAL, sorry obligatory

US Vs Miller did not rule as to the right of the individual to posses a firearm it ruled in regards to the type of firearm the individual possesed i.e. a sawed off shotgun was not shown to be used in the military (remember there was no lawyer present for Miller so the Gov lawyer could say what he wanted with no fear of rebuttal) so since it was not a military weapon it was not protected by the 2nd ammendment.

Not saying I agree but that is how I understand the ruling

NukemJim