'Forgotten' cases support the 2nd ammendment

[NRA Instructor]

A six-year study of Supreme Court cases has found scores of "forgotten decisions" affecting the "highly contested" constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Titled "Supreme Court Gun Cases," the study examines 92 cases – 44 of them unedited and concludes without a doubt "the Supreme Court has recognized an individual right to arms for most of the past two centuries."

"Three dozen of the cases quote or mention the Second Amendment directly," says a statement by Bloomfield Press, publisher of the study.

The authors also show how the Supreme Court has recognized and supported armed self defense "with personally owned firearms" and that "an ancient 'duty to retreat'" from a threat "is not obligatory."

Also, the study shows "the oft-cited Miller case from 1939 is inconclusive, which is why gun-rights and gun-control advocates both claim it supports their position."

Gun control advocates say the Miller case showed the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" is granted only to states so they can arm their militias, not private citizens. The high court essentially upheld the government's authority to prosecute a person for possession of a sawed-off shotgun.

"The record shows the court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence, since there was no evidence presented, because Miller had been murdered by that time and his co-defendant had taken a plea agreement, no retrial or evidentiary hearing was ever held."

Justices "have not been quiet on the subject, and they have not disparaged individual rights – the days of saying that are now over," said Bloomberg. "The high court could change its mind, of course, but only by rejecting a record built up for hundreds of years."

 

[Thumper]

Gun control advocates say the Miller case showed the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" is granted only to states so they can arm their militias, not private citizens. The high court essentially upheld the government's authority to prosecute a person for possession of a sawed-off shotgun.

Knowing the facts surrounding the case, how can anyone say that Miller doesn't support the Individual Right view?

Do these people even read the majority opinion, or just look at the final disposition of the case?

 

[Graystar]

"The record shows the court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence,"

That is not what the record shows. The record shows that the case was remanded. There is no such order from the Court for a hearing on evidence.

This kind of misinformation is what happens when lay people (of which, I admit, I am a part) read documents written in legalese. The ruling from the Court was "judgment reversed" and "remanded for further proceeding." The fact that the Court stated there was no evidence doesn't mean that they tossing their hands up in the air and just sending the case back for evidence. In truth, at the time of this case there was no evidence in any form that Miller could have used. The so-called Trench Gun of WW1 had a barrel length of 20". There simply were no shotguns with a barrel length of less than 18" in use by any common US military force.

The lack-of-evidence comment of the Court also reflects the fact that the court could not find any law supporting Miller's position. Indeed, the Court itself presented cites from previous acts demonstrating that militiamen were expected to have long barreled weapons.

There are two major problems with Miller. The first is that the Miller decision is correct. The second is that this fact has overshadowed a more important fact...that we have the right to carry firearms for personal protection.

Miller is correct because the right recognized in the 2nd Amendment is a "supporting" right (for lack of a better term) to our basic right to self-defense. It is equivalent to the right to a free press. The press is free because it supports and extends our right to free expression. In the same way, the right to form a militia supports and extends our right to possess firearms for self-defense.

However, we recognize that a free press is a separate right from free expression, with free expression being the base of a free press. In the same way, the right to keep and bear arms is separate from the right to possess firearms for self-defense. Each right has its purpose and delineation. The right to keep and bear arms is all about defense of state. The right to possess firearms for self-defense is the base.

Unfortunately, unlike free expression and a free press, which were both recognized in the Constitution, the FF only officially recognized the right to state defense, probably because the right to possess firearms for self-defense had never been violated by the King. The Bill Of Rights is, essentially, a listing of the grievances held by the colonist against the King, and intended to prevent the same offenses from occurring again.

What the Bill Of Rights is NOT, is a listing of “vital†or “higher†rights borne from lots of discussion by enlightened souls. It is simply “This is what the King did, so this is what the new federal government *cannot* do.†And one of the things the King tried to do was to empty the armories before the war, thereby preventing the colonies from defending their “states.†So, as the Miller court ruled, the 2nd Amendment really is about defense of state. That is how they proceeded. It is also why all defenses of firearm possession (for personal defense) based on the 2nd Amendment will ultimately fail. These cases are hinging on the wrong right.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Moving to legal/political

And an interesting post.

 

[Quartus]

the right recognized in the 2nd Amendment is a "supporting" right (for lack of a better term) to our basic right to self-defense.

Agreed. (Otherwise it's really a right of the state!) Let's try putting it this way:


the right recognized in the 2nd Amendment is the logical and necessary consequence of our basic right to self-defense.


I think that works better. Or we could say:

the right recognized in the 2nd Amendment is predicated on a more fundamental right, that of our basic right to self-defense.



I can't really afford it, but I intend to scrape the money together and get this book. I want to see what they found for myself.

Arguing Miller has gotten us nowhere. I'm anxious to see what else there is.

 

[Jack T.]

well gee. . . Amazon doesn't carry it.

edit: barns and noble has it

 

[Waitone]

This kind of misinformation is what happens when lay people (of which, I admit, I am a part) read documents written in legalese.

Quoting from the Worldnetdaily article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34163

The study, available for order next month, is "the most important set of words written about your constitutional guarantees," said Alan Korwin, a firearms and legal researcher and co-author of the report.

Korwin, along with co-authors David B. Kopel and Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook, show the nation's highest court "has not been quiet on this subject as previously thought."

Kopel and Halbrook are attorneys.

 

[Graystar]

Quoting from the Worldnetdaily article...

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that the poster was misquoting. It is the meaning of the quote that I am referring to. Bloomfield Press made the remark (doesn't say who the actual person was,) and it is wrong.