View Single Post
Old January 6, 2013, 01:57 PM   #6
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
There are some few things in Miller that many don't or won't take the time to understand. That includes both sides of the gun-debate. So let's take a look at the way it is actually read:

Quote:
In the absence of any evidence
At the District court, there was no evidence offered that

Quote:
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,
Therefore,

Quote:
we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
We can say that almost everyone "knew" that trench guns were used extensively during WW1. And that is possibly correct (but by no means, conclusive). But such a record did not exist at the district court. Since no record was developed at the lower court, the Justices concluded:

Quote:
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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
So regardless of what common knowledge may have been as regards "trench guns," without a judicial record there was no official judicial notice.

McReynolds then goes on to discuss things that aren't relevant to this discussion. However, what is relevant, is the closing lines of the decision:

Quote:
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.
Meaning that the decision is voided and remanded back to the district court to further develop the record. We cannot say if the SCOTUS would have had a different opinion, had a complete record been made available.

We also know (now) that Miller was dead, by the time of the decision. So the case was never reheard and remains to this day, a very unusual case, in the annuals of Justice.

Today, we have to juxtapose the Miller "common military use" definition with the Heller "common use" by civilians definition. This is why Justice Scalia was circumspect when he addressed the M16. The M16 (and SBS) are in "common military" usage, but because of the NFA, such arms are not in "common use" by civilians. It's a thoroughly circular argument and we simply won't win this argument, any time soon. If ever.

For a brief (if biased) overview of Miller, see "The strange case of United States v. Miller"

For a better picture, see "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller "

To understand the use of SBS in WW1, see America's Munitions, 1917-1918

Yet, despite the current rulings by the SCOTUS, despite the fact that the State of Rhode Island has a strong pre-emptive firearms law, we have this: Rhode Island: Providence Passes Resolution Banning Semi-Automatic Guns

This hysteria is fueling more than the US Congress or the States of California and Illinois.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03271 seconds with 8 queries