Gun Control & RKBA

jimmy the one wrote:

Surf Fishing Guru wrote:
So you think a unanimous decision (to reverse and remand) where the Justices only hear the government's arguments {,} carries more weight than a split decision where both parties and numerous amici fully briefed the Court {,} and both parties argued their positions before the Court?

Indeed I do.

You appear quite willing to abandon / abrogate settled standards of US law. Decisions like Miller are considered arbitrary because they violate the legal maxim, audi alteram partem.

jimmy the one wrote:Jack Miller was simply the catalyst for 1939 miller case, just as emerson was the catalyst for 2008 heller. That they both were accused & 'tried' of firearm violations hasn't that much to do with the renderings of the courts regarding the militia vs the individual interpretations.

The "catalyst"? What the heck does that mean in a legal sense? Can you stop making stuff up? I can understand why you need to employ terms that are utterly meaningless in the legal realm because you invent ridiculous conclusions from the cases . . . You refuse to understand that Miller was about the military usefulness of the sawed-off shotgun. Miller was decided on the singular point that the Court heard no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun has military usefulness, that a sawed-off shotgun was a type of arm that is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Miller had nothing to do with Miller and Layton's militia attachment status and it certainly said nothing limiting the possession and use of shotguns with a barrel length over 18 inches (or any other "common use" arm) by private citizens. Actually, as Cases v US said, the "Miller rule" demands an absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, rendering the federal government completely impotent in regulating modern arms, even machine guns and mortars.

I gotta commend the amazing baseless rationalization you are capable of . . . That and just how wrong you can be on the law; a prime example:

jimmy the one wrote:1939 scotus unanimously held for the militia view, while 2008 scotus narrowly held 5-4 for an individual rkba, split upon liberal vs conservative views.

Heller was 9-0 for the individual right view -- Breyer saying, "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right" . . . "

The dissents also agreed that, "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” " so how can you argue with a straight face that Heller actually decided that question and that the dissents actually held that the right secured by the 2nd Amendment was "collective"?

Please stop making stuff up.

jimmy the one wrote:You surfer guru, argue for the far right wing interpretation of 2ndA in almost everything you present. I remind you that you oppose the dominant democrat position & we post on democrat underground. Perhaps you would prefer posting on nra or goa websites or 'rightwing republican underground' where you can prop up inter alios ted cruz rand paul & Donald trump.

Not that I need to state my bona-fides but I am a Democrat, a second generation union building trades member (34 years) and have a hard time voting for R's that my union endorses. I am pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, anti-religious-right.

I refuse to accept that your position is the default Democrat position, I embrace the Constitution and the principles it is founded on and if your corruption of those principles ever becomes the default position then I will become an independent.

Do you realize that your hostility to the RKBA puts privacy / abortion rights at risk? The nature of the ALL the rights secured by the Bill of Rights is the basis for penumbral rights; your desire to dissect one away threatens the "rational continuum" of liberty embodied in the Bill of Rights.

jimmy the one wrote:surfer guru: As the Cases court recognized,
Since you introduced circuit/appellate courts, april love vs pepersack, 4th circ:

Cases v US was the genesis of the "militia right" interpretation in the US federal court system. It needed to dismiss and ignore SCOTUS in Miller to arrive at that "collective right" opinion. Love v Pepersack relies on Johnson which relies on Cody which relies on Cases. Heller invalidated all that garbage (along with US v Tot's "state's right" and Tot's illegitimate progeny).

Among lower federal court decisions, Cases (inserting the militia right in the federal courts) and Tot (inserting the state's right in the federal courts) are the only ones worth discussing as they are the wobbly lamp posts that all the drunken clods of Oakes, Hale, Johnson, Cody, Stevens, Warin, etc., lean on.