The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - CT senator to attempt a ban on all but single-shot weapons

rts99 · January 13, 2013, 12:43 PM

Unfortunately the misguided ruling by the SC in Miller has placed the legislatures in quite a bind. Miller states clearly & unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment ONLY protects the right to bear military weapons. (I believe the wording states "suitable for militia purposes"). The court ruled that a short barrel shot-gun (aka sawed off shot-gun) serves no military purpose and ONLY weapons suitable for military use were protected. Notice that weapons for hunting are NOT protected (or at least the court ignored hunting weapons in the Miller ruling). The court overturned lower court rulings basically because the defendant (Mr. Miller) was alleged to be a member of organized crime arising from prohibition. So, this now muddies the waters.

In Heller the court ruled that handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment for self-defense purposes. In the home you aren't bearing weapons so it's not clear if the Miller ruling applies. But outside the home, which is where Miller does apply, the ruling is quite clear. You MUST bear military weapons.

So, what is a military weapon? Dueling pistols are definitely out. In a number of Amici briefs for Heller & McDonald the states all cried out about only weapons identified in the 2nd Militial Act of 1792 and only those weapons in "common use" in 1791 (date of ratification) were protected by the 2nd Amendment. The commentary in Heller & McDonald definitely disputes this. So no matter what the legislatures attempt do prohibit simply can't run affoul of Miller & Heller. Everything I've read so far clearly violates the rulings in both of these cases.

What the legislatures are attempting to do is to repeal the protections of the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional law instead of amending the constitution. This is because they know they'll lose the convention as well as their job.

January 13, 2013, 12:43 PM	#8
rts99 Member Join Date: April 20, 2012 Posts: 40	Miller Ruling Unfortunately the misguided ruling by the SC in Miller has placed the legislatures in quite a bind. Miller states clearly & unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment ONLY protects the right to bear military weapons. (I believe the wording states "suitable for militia purposes"). The court ruled that a short barrel shot-gun (aka sawed off shot-gun) serves no military purpose and ONLY weapons suitable for military use were protected. Notice that weapons for hunting are NOT protected (or at least the court ignored hunting weapons in the Miller ruling). The court overturned lower court rulings basically because the defendant (Mr. Miller) was alleged to be a member of organized crime arising from prohibition. So, this now muddies the waters. In Heller the court ruled that handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment for self-defense purposes. In the home you aren't bearing weapons so it's not clear if the Miller ruling applies. But outside the home, which is where Miller does apply, the ruling is quite clear. You MUST bear military weapons. So, what is a military weapon? Dueling pistols are definitely out. In a number of Amici briefs for Heller & McDonald the states all cried out about only weapons identified in the 2nd Militial Act of 1792 and only those weapons in "common use" in 1791 (date of ratification) were protected by the 2nd Amendment. The commentary in Heller & McDonald definitely disputes this. So no matter what the legislatures attempt do prohibit simply can't run affoul of Miller & Heller. Everything I've read so far clearly violates the rulings in both of these cases. What the legislatures are attempting to do is to repeal the protections of the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional law instead of amending the constitution. This is because they know they'll lose the convention as well as their job.