So....the Second Amendment is sacred?

[Terwilliger]

Here's the Bill from John Corzine:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108aD4tFu::

February 12, 2003
Mr. CORZINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



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


A BILL
To prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to advocate a position that is inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent with respect to the Second Amendment .


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

No funds appropriated to the Department of Justice or any other agency may be used to file any brief or to otherwise advocate before any judicial or administrative body any position with respect to the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution that is inconsistent with existing Supreme Court precedent, as expressed in United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174 (1939)).

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


Now, here's our illustrious government participating in illegal activities of their own:

http://www.mpp.org/WarOnDrugCzar/

The Marijuana Policy Project is now working to have a series of amendments introduced on the House floor that would weaken the drug czar's power to work against state and local marijuana law-reform efforts and would shift the focus of his ad campaign from reefer-madness-style fear-mongering to education on the real harms of dangerous drugs. Encourage your U.S. representative to support these amendments by sending a pre-written fax to Congress today.

On May 7, in a shockingly far-reaching decision, the supposedly independent federal Office of Special Counsel (OSC) wrote a letter to John Walters informing him that, as drug czar, he has a virtually unlimited right to use his office to campaign against drug policy initiatives on state ballots.

The letter was in response to a Marijuana Policy Project complaint against Walters based on the fact that he used his office to campaign against Question 9, the marijuana initiative that appeared on the November 2002 Nevada ballot. MPP alleged that Walters' actions violated the 1939 Hatch Act, which bars federal officials from using their official authority and influence to affect the result of an election.

The OSC wrote that votes on ballot initiatives are not "elections," despite a plain reference in the regulations indicating otherwise, and that the Hatch Act does not apply to nonpartisan activities. (Interestingly, the Bush administration recently advised federal Head Start employees that lobbying Congress in support of funding for early childhood education -- clearly a nonpartisan activity -- would be a Hatch Act violation.) This ruling means the drug czar can campaign as much he wants against state ballot initiatives using federal tax dollars. In addition, the OSC found nothing wrong with the idea that the drug czar may have steered a $3 million grant to Nevada this past fall to induce state officials to oppose Question 9 -- meaning the drug czar can use taxpayer money to bribe local officials to oppose drug policy reform measures.

________________________________________________________________

WELL, there it is. The Second Amendment is sacred to Democrats, and it's OK for government officials to campaign against campaigning.

THAT's AMERICA!! :nuke:

[Ponderer]

1. Corzine knows that bill is vague as hell

What the fuck is he thinking?

[QC]

2. My guess is that

he's trying to prevent the Justice Department from pushing extreme interpretations of the Second Amendment, like the popular conservative notion that the amendment applies to individuals and not just the militia.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

4. Really?

I could be said that Miller is closer to an individual rights opinion than a collective rights opinion.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

3. Ahh, but what exactly

Is the predent set by Miller?

[QC]

5. See link.

As I suspected, it's the precedent which holds that the Second Amendment refers to the militia and not to an individual right for people to own any kind of gun they want.

http://www.saneguns.org/sources/cases/us_v_miller.html

[Man_in_the_Moon]

6. Erm

I have disected Miller many many times. Nowhere does it say the Second Amendment refers to the Militia, and not to an individual right. If anything it says that the since the individual IS the Militia, any weapon that would contribute to the common defense is out of the realm of being taxed.

For you see the Court never questioned whether or not Miller was a member, active or not, of the Militia of the United States, they simply questioned whether or not the weapon was of 'Militia Quality'.

And if you know the history of the case you would see that this is a very interesting case, and some of the language used to 'prove' whatever the people want to prove is usually taken out of context to the extreme.

There are a few things you should know when approaching Miller, that many people dont bother with:

1- It was not about a conviction for a crime, it was about a dismissal of charges by a lower court.

2- Miller put up no argument before the Supreme Court, and no one represented him there. This is where the infamous 'In the absence of any evidence' phrase comes from, which is misused by many to get the decision to say what they want it to say.

3- Since no case was put forth supporting the dismissal, the Supreme Court following standard proceedure had to refer it back to the lower court and order the lower court to rehear the case.

4- Miller never had a trial over the issue because he died before that could happen.

[Terwilliger]

7. you STILL want to play law...have you said exactly what you'll do about

the ONDCP using government funds against campaigning for the freedoms of drug users?

[QC]

11. How has Miller generally been interpreted?

How do the courts generally treat it?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

12. Any way the person

or judge, or court, who is interpreting it wants to.

The courts for the most part have either ignored it, or are split on it, with some going one way (States have the 'right' to regulate) and some going another (that there is an individual right). The SCOTUS has repeatedly ducked the issue, and will probably continue to do so, so there is no clarification from them on the issue. But of the Justices sitting on it now, most have written opinions in one case or another (most of which have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, they just have used the 2nd Amendment as a example of an 'individual right') that gives crediance to the 'individual rights' viewpoint.

Alot of people who are for gun control interpret it to mean that regulation is ok. And to be honest it does say that, but it also says that weapons suitable for militia use (note, it does not say 'weapons for Militia use', it says 'suitable') cannot be restricted.

So in other words, the Miller decision is probably ok handgun restrictions, but would nullify large portions of the NFA of '34 (which is what regulates machine guns).

Funny thing is, that 'sawed off shotguns' (the weapon before the Court in Miller) were used in WW1 to great effect, so an actual argument before the Court would most definitely have shown evidence that they were 'Militia Quality', ie it could be said they contribute to the common defense.

[Moosenose]

17. not necessarily true...

"So in other words, the Miller decision is probably ok handgun restrictions, but would nullify large portions of the NFA of '34 (which is what regulates machine guns)."

as handguns are indeed issued quite frequently to people in the Military, and clearly have a "militia" use.

[Moosenose]

16. It's split....

with the 9th Circuit notably taking the "collective rights" approach, and the 5th Circuit notably taking the "individual rights" approach.

In other words, the meaning of Miller varies depending on where you live. That's no way to run a country...

[Moosenose]

9. QC...nope...

Miller states that the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment are weapons with a military application. "Absent a showing" that a weapon is of military value, that weapon can be regulated and taxed. Since nobody even filed an amicus brief for Miller's side, there wasn't a showing.

Miller was a REALLY bad decision...in that it can be read to support either the individual rights model (in that Miller wasn't in a militia, in fact he was precluded from being in one, so how can it be about the militia?) or the collective rights model (in that the private ownership of weapons can in fact be regulated).

Miller is still "good law" in that it hasn't been overturned, but as actually "good law", it's a really bad, poorly worded decision.

[jody]

10. Moosenose, what was the item(s) that precluded Miller from being

in the militia?

I don't have a copy of federal law in the late 1930s establishing the militia like Section 311, Title 10 does today.

[Moosenose]

14. IIRC...

he had a prior felony conviction. He was also "overage".

[jody]

18. Thanks eom

:hi:

[NickB79]

13. So.......

I can own all the assault rifles and machine guns I want under th Miller decision, but can't own a .30-30 lever action rifle for deer hunting? I can live with that :-)

"Miller states that the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment are weapons with a military application."

According to that, Miller should have WON his case, considering one of the judges on the court had fought in the trenches of WWI, where sawed-off shotguns were military-issue weapons! If he didn't know about the very weapons issued to his company, that is scary.

Back to the state-vs-individual rights issue, can anyone who claims the 2nd is a collective right point to any other right defined in the Bill of Rights that is a collective right? Is the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc Amendment only protect state's rights as well? Why would one amendment be written about states rights and the rest about individual rights?

[Moosenose]

15. He would have...

"According to that, Miller should have WON his case, considering one of the judges on the court had fought in the trenches of WWI, where sawed-off shotguns were military-issue weapons! If he didn't know about the very weapons issued to his company, that is scary."

if somebody for his side had showed up. Hell, if somebody for his side had shown up after it was remanded and offered a showing that the NFA affects military weapons (as it manifestly does) it would have been struck down.

"Bad facts make bad law." this is one of the great "truisms" of law. In this case, Miller's being unrepresented meant that only one side was heard, so the court could only recognize one side of the argument. That's where the "judicial notice" phrase sprang from.

[jody]

8. Before you wet yourself in excitement over the bill you cited, read these

H. CON. RES. 179
QUOTE
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees individuals the right to bear arms.
UNQUOTE


:H.R.193:|H. R. 193]
QUOTE
PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
UNQUOTE


QUOTE
`Second Amendment Protection Act of 2003'.
UNQUOTE


QUOTE
PURPOSE- It is the purpose of this Act to restore States' rights, the tenth amendment , and second amendment freedoms.
UNQUOTE


QUOTE
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
UNQUOTE

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.