Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mike Sullivan on Heller

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Gunnerpalace, Jul 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gunnerpalace

    Gunnerpalace Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Somewhere in Michigan
    From the man himself.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/acting-director-michael-j-sullivan/story.aspx?guid=%7BC2BEB513-F805-4E10-84AC-70F2C64D16D8%7D&dist=hppr

    Please try to refrain from getting this thread locked and look at Muller from the FBI.
     
  2. Jimmy Dean

    Jimmy Dean Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    I am still waiting on the follow up cases. From what Scalia said, the 2nd both protects and doesnt protect our right to machine guns, sawed off etc, seeing as how 'they are in common military usage' so we'll see. thats all that I have to say about that. :p
     
  3. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,809
    Location:
    AZ, WA
    Uhhh, that's not what the court said. That's what you wish they'd said!
     
  4. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Thing is, Miller wanted the weapon to be in use in the military... We've got a contradiction here...

    Hey, if anyone here's thinking of voting against McCain, just consider how that Attorney General's guidance came into being...
     
  5. Jimmy Dean

    Jimmy Dean Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    I dont think that they SCOTUS will have any problems with striking down the Miller ruling, seeing as how the defendant wasnt alive to go to court, and the defense attorneys never showed, so it was in a sense, not a fair trial.
     
  6. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    I saw a lot of 'We have decided that the ruling means we must change no policies and will continue to do exactly the same thing exactly as we wish.'

    That should be of no surprise.
    One segment of government decided only some infringement is okay, and another interpreted that as whatever infringement they feel is necessary.
     
  7. stevelyn

    stevelyn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,290
    Location:
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    What else could you expect from the leader of the Waffen BATFEces? :barf:
     
  8. Wes Janson

    Wes Janson Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,962
    And that right there, in my book, is sufficient evidence that we really shouldn't be celebrating our "victory". When ATF is "pleased" with a decision regarding gun control, there is no possible way we can benefit.
     
  9. Gunnerpalace

    Gunnerpalace Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Somewhere in Michigan
    Need to finish the sentence.
     
  10. LaEscopeta

    LaEscopeta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    Los Estados Unidos
    The Heller decision says the 2cd amendment protects those types of weapons in common use by CIVILIANS, not weapons in common military usage.

    Page 53 of the Heller decision: ”We therefore read Miller to say
    only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
    weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
    for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

    Page 55: “But as we have said,
    the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
    Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
    capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
    lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
    duty.”


    Page 51: ““weapons which are commonly
    used by criminals,” such as sawed-off shotguns, are not
    protected.”


    Well, this is what the court said:

    Page 55: “We think
    that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
    of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
    weapons.”

    Page 52: “Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
    military equipment” could mean that only those
    weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
    startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
    the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
    (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
    machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.”

    You can download a .PDF file of the decision here:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

    --------------------------

    Edited to add:

    Well, the Miller decisions said weapons protected by the second amendment need to “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. That does not mean in use by the active profession military. The militia (private citizens banding together for the common defense) uses the weapons civilians commonly keep in their homes for legal purposes. That is the weapons people have that are efficient for militia service are the ones protected by the 2cd amendment.


    Page 55of the Heller decision: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
    in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
    banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
    detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
    the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
    Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
    capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
    lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
    duty.”
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2008
  11. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    The "Dangerous and Unusual" line was the WMD catch all line, "though shalt not CCW a backpack nuke" or take a canister of VX to show and tell"

    The phrase wasn't categorized or delineated so expect a challenge to applying it to machine guns etc.
     
  12. brickeyee

    brickeyee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,135
    The closing lines of the US v Miller decision.
    Miller was ordered to stand trial.

    Scalia in Heller has added self defense as another purpose under the second amendment, and flatly stated it is an individual right.

    The only thing Miller actually decided is that it MIGHT be a challange to the NFA if an arm could be used by the Militia.

    The ruling has been twisted for many years to say all sorts of things that it did not actually conclude.

    Under Scalia's ruling and Miller, showing an M-16 is a militia weapon might be a way to mount an attack on the 86 law, but NOT the NFA itself.
    The NFA would likely pass muster as a 'reasonable' regulation since it is a registration scheme.
    The 86 law IS a ban on militia type weapons.

    If incorporation is obtained for the Second, states with bans on automatic weapons might also come under attack.

    It is going to take MANY more court battles.
     
  13. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    So the govt bans a weapon (just a certain barrel length, actually) and then later says that the 2A doesn't protect it because it is no longer "common" :rolleyes:
     
  14. unspellable

    unspellable Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,744
    Location:
    Iowa
    It never ceases ...

    It never ceases to amze me that the courts and the bureaucracy can come up with such a convoluted mess when the original language was straightforward enough for the average fifth grader to comprehend.

    Not to mention that a simple matter will be dragged through the system for years to come running up millions in legal expenses if you include the court's time.

    But it does provide employemnt for lawyers.
     
  15. novaDAK

    novaDAK Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Miller stated that the 2A only protects weapons suitable for military use.

    Now Heller states that the 2A only protects weapons that are commonly possessed by civilians for legal purposes.

    As already stated, first they ban them, then rule that you don't have the right to have them because they are 'uncommon'.... :rolleyes:
     
  16. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    18,550
    Location:
    Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
    "Dangerous weapons" is redundant...
     
  17. brickeyee

    brickeyee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,135
    It EXTENDS the applicability, NOT limiting it to only the militia or only self defense.

    Miller already decided that militia weapons are protected.
     
  18. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    It sucks! They'd be unbelievably common if people didn't have to jump through so many hoops to get permission to have them. :fire: Impossible to make MGs common because they capped the supply (I think there are somewhere around 100,000 of them in the registry).
    Lift the 86 ban, move SBS/SBR/Suppressors to Title I, and we'll see if they are still uncommon in about 10 years :evil: The ATF would probably be pleased if they lifted the 86 ban (provided they are concerned with job security as opposed to just bullying and punishing innocent citizens). They'd have to hire dozens of new employees just to handle the storm of Form 1 and 4s that would come in.
    FA stuff is very common in the military.
     
  19. Matt304

    Matt304 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Utica, IL
    deleted
     
  20. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Guys, keep in mind that we're seeing them -reacting- to stuff... Instead of the other way around.

    Now, regarding NFA stuff... We're not going to see an "all at once" decision. IMHO, the best thing we could do is get someone to sponsor a "small arms development act" which would essentially open the registry again. I know I've had ideas... And after the first terrorist attack following the election, a lot of stuff is going to get voted in.

    And actually, logic wise, I think Heller would support opening the registry. Not being allowed to register something is VERY akin to what was going on in DC...
     
  21. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    People in the military are law abiding citizens, though not civilians.
    The ruling clearly says citizens, not civilians. Most members of the armed forces are citizens of the United States, and they can even vote in elections as citizens!

    Police and all LEO are definately 100% civilians and citizens (If they are not then it is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act), any weapons commonly employed by those citizens would definately be included.
    How many departments and LEO agencies now have SWAT type teams standard (going by many different names), and what type of weapons do they employ?
    Seems to be in common use by law abiding citizens and civilians.
     
  22. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Hmm... Very good point Zoogster!
    There are MP5s, M4s, and SBS in most tactical units.
     
  23. grimjaw

    grimjaw Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,358
    Location:
    Arkansas
    'carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,' such as machineguns

    Machineguns are more unusual following the ban of their sale and manufacture to civvies. Certain legislators would like to have semi-automatic firearms fall into the same category.

    jm
     
  24. Happiness Is A Warm Gun

    Happiness Is A Warm Gun Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Looking at historical perspective:

    Militia consisted of all able bodied men and they were armed with muskets. Were there any weapons in the early United States that were NOT used by the militia? Only weapon I can think of is cannon.
    If so then I could see restrictions on MG
    Canon (not used by milita) ------> MG (not used by citizens today)
    Muskets (used by Milita) ---------> Rifles & Pistols (used by citizens today)

    On the other hand if informal militias DID have Canon they I think any legal argument for ban of MG is baseless.
     
  25. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    Cannon are artillery.

    In the military sense a crew served machinegun is usualy what the word "machinegun" refers to.

    However the legal definition of machinegun is just a select fire weapon, which is the worldwide standard for combat suitable rifles.
    Just like the muskets were the worldwide small arms standard of the day. A select fire rifle is not a valid comparison to traditional cannon (which also has a different modern definition).
    The modern cannon comparison would instead be personal howitzers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page