If they overturn the lower court however, that will set a precedent that may make things very diffucult for gun owners in some states.This probably will end up being somewhat anti-climactic. The supreme court will try to make their ruling as narrow as possible. If DC is ruled against, we won't be getting "You know what, the 2nd amendment really does apply. Throw out the NFA!".
It will be interesting to see though.
Here's hoping for the best.
I have actually read US vs Miller during my undergrad years as a political science student in college... my question is however, do you have anything to offer beside being a spoiler and rudely questioning the credentials or critiquing the information that is supplied in a topic of all who post in any thread you participate in. The point of the article was that the Supreme Court has NEVER DEFINITIVELY RULED ON ANY 2A CASE brought before it since 1939 (as Ishi correctly implied- the SC ruling will likely be very anti-climactic). If you can find one or more cases that may prove that case or statement wrong please educate us about one or more of them here. I, for one, would like to see your valuable and intellectual contributions, in the stead of dashing the credibility of people who post and the information we collectively gather and post here.To wit:
"Though the Supreme Court discussed the Second Amendment in a 1939 gun case, the court has never definitively ruled on if the amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun or if it only protects a right of state militias to resist being disarmed by the national government."
This was obviously writter by one who has never actually read "Miller" and sounds like some of the crapola espoused by the Bradys and their ilk.
The criticism was of the original MSNBC article, not any poster here, and that is what I quoted.
I did not and have not intended to bash or denigrate any poster here but, as I said, the criticism was of the author of the original article quoted here, and not of the poster who provided it.
for the "handshake".
I appreciate the camaraderie and sincerity of your reply.
AWwwww.... They made up.<Hand Shaking> Thank you for the clarification... my most sincere apologies for misinterpreting your posts, shortcoming of electronic communications media, I guess.
Bohemian Bro... this one is a really good, scratch that, EXCELLENT read!Follow the case...THE SUPREME COURT'S THIRTY-FIVE OTHER GUN CASES: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
US v Miller
Here is the main line of reasoning that shows what the Court actually said in U.S. v. Miller(1939)... and how it doesn't mean diddly.
The Court was quite sneaky and devious in its wording with this non-ruling. Look at this: The Court said, "WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS." So, let's look at "WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW ..." What does that tell you? It tells you that the Court didn't say that the conclusion of the court below was wrong, the Court said because there was no evidence presented, it cannot accept the conclusion. They said in the beginning that "In the absence of any evidence....we cannot say...". Then the Court continued with, "..AND THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. When ever the Court reverses a lower court ruling, it does not include anything like "...must be...". The Court did not reverse or vacate the judgment of the lower court. The Court didn't say the judgment IS reversed or vacated. "THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS." The Court instructed the lower court to proceed further on the case, presumably, to have the needed evidence presented to support the lower court's conclusion that the NFA is unconstitutional by showing that the sawed-off shotgun is a viable weapon for the militia. Sadly, Miller had been murdered before the case had been concluded, and Layton(Miller's co-defendant) accepted a plea. There was no one left to continue the case. Don't forget, however, that this, for all intents and purposes, is moot in the light of the Second Amendment.
Another thing I find interesting: It says the "cause" will be remanded for further proceedings, not the "case". I cannot find this verbiage in any other case after a random search of about 50 cases.We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things - just as numbers have value and you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math.doublenutz said:Interesting position. However, I am curious- Are you presenting this as THEORY or FACT?
If factual- is it based on your interpretive experiences in the environment or an academic prowess.
I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things - just as numbers have value and you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math.