Mr. Jaggers wrote:Here is some of your "case law"...

Hickman v Block is a federal court of appeals case from the ninth circuit, in which the appellate judge Hall had declared: "The seminal authority in this area continues to be United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934), for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment protected his possession of that weapon."

First of all, Jack Miller was not convicted of any crime in the federal district court. Second, Jack Miller was not the appellant in the case before the Supreme Court; the government was; and, the government, being the appellant in this case, did not propose the "hypothesis that the Second Amendment protected his possession of that weapon."

Judge Hall also wrote, in the case of Hickman v. Block: "Moreover, even if we determined that Hickman had standing to sue for violation of the Second Amendment, his suit would nevertheless fail because the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights."

Now, how credible is this ridiculous proclamation???

It is noted in Stephen P. Halbrook's writings concerning US v Miller: "Defendants had been convicted of transporting in interstate commerce a shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches without having in their possession the stamp-affixed written order required under the Act, which was the first federal statute ever passed, which regulated, through taxation and registration, the keeping and bearing of certain arms."

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were not "convicted of transporting in interstate commerce a shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches without having in their possession the stamp-affixed written order", as noted by Mr. Halbrook. A federal circuit court of appeals has made the same erroneous assumption.

There was no trial in the case of US v Miller. Jack Miller and Frank Layton filed a timely demurrer, rejecting the claim in the indictment filed against them by the federal government that they had committed a crime in having a shotgun in their car. From the district court records it is noted: "The demurrer is accordingly sustained." The federal district court in Arkansas had "quashed" the indictment.

It is also noted: "Although the judgment against the right to possess sawed-off shotguns was a default judgment based on the non-appearance of defendants, Miller stands for the proposition that the people, in their capacity as individuals, could keep and bear arms appropriate for militia use."

The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of US v Miller was not "against the right to possess sawed-off shotguns"; it was against the dismissal of the indictment by the federal district court in Arkansas. The indictment brought against Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton by the government was to be reinstated, and a trial was to be conducted so that facts could be presented and evidence developed for further proceedings before the Supreme Court, if any.

The eighth circuit federal court of appeals has declared, in their opinion: "In Miller, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. In so doing, the Court rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protected the possession of that weapon"

We all know that Jack Miller and Frank Layton were not convicted of any crime in this case, but instead, were released from custody, the judge quashing the indictment brought against Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton by the government prosecutors. The eighth circuit court of appeals, in making this erroneous declaration, tainted the record, making them appear as though they were appealing a conviction of a crime, and setting the pace for their other bold declaration: "In so doing, the Court rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protected the possession of that weapon". We all know that there was no representation for Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton at the hearing before the Supreme Court; therefore, they could not have made the argument that the eighth circuit federal court of appeals referenced.

The case of US v Wright, from the 11th circuit, has also participated in the subterfuge. Judge Kravitch had declared: "In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the Court considered whether the National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. § 1132, which required the registration of certain firearms, violated the Second Amendment rights of two individuals indicted for transporting unregistered sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce."

We all know, and the record shows, that Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton were not "transporting unregistered sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce." They had one shotgun in their car, and it was not for sale. This court has tainted the record against these two men by attempting to project the image that they were "transporting unregistered sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce", bootlegging these shotguns for sale in interstate commerce without license. Thus, the court was paving the way for their agenda.

Then there is the fourth circuit case of Love v Pepersack, in which was declared: "In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)."

It is a fact that this is what the court stated in Love v Pepersack, but what was stated is not a fact. The federal statute did not prohibit "possession of a sawed-off shotgun". From the court records, it is noted: "The defendants in this case are charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma, to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas, a double barrel twelve gauge shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, and at the time of so transporting said fire arm in interstate commerce they did not have in their possession a stamped affixed written order for said fire arm as required by Section 1132c, Title 26 U.S.C.A., and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. section 1132 et seq." Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, then, filed their timely demurrer, and the court released them from custody, finding that the section of the act noted in the indictment was unconstitutional as it pertained to Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton. When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the prosecutor, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the district court for a trial to assemble a record of evidence and facts to work on. There was no appearance before the Supreme Court of counsel for Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton so the Court had no argument on their behalf to structure an opinion on one way or the other but what was presented to them by the federal prosecutor. The case of Love v Pepersack was a civil rights case, and not a second amendment case.

Professor Carl T. Bogus, a member of the Board of Directors for Handgun Control, Inc., in an article entitled The Strong Case for Gun Control, has edicted: "United States v. Miller -- a man was convicted of transporting a double-barrel shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of federal law. He argued that the legislation was invalid because it violated his rights under the Second Amendment. In affirming the conviction, the Court held that the Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied in the context of the government's organizing, arming, disciplining, or calling into service the militia."

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end???

No it is not. It is a power. The only time that the word right is used in the Constitution is in conjunction with the word people. Never, is it used in conjunction with the words states nor government. The Constitution is quite clear in its wording regarding the issues.

Governments have power and authority granted to them by the Consitution, Individuals have rights protected by the Constitution.

dmk

However, the Miller decision never addressed whether the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. In reviewing the case the Court also cited and stated laws that required all males to own firearms. Since this is included in the decision, is it also the law of the land????

All Miller decided was that a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon that had a practical military use. That is all. The Court upheld a statute that regulated the transportation of machine guns and short-barrelled shotguns.

The 8th Circuit Court in US v Hutzel stated in its decision the following:


In Casey v Planned Parenthood, Justice O'Connor writing for the Court stated the following:

It would see that she incorporated the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. As well as did Justice Harlan, who again O'Connor quoted in the same opinion:

In 1990 the Supreme Court addressed the use of the word the people by the Constitution and found that.....

Furthermore, the Emerson decision by the Fifth Circuit has clearly stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Finally the DC Court of Appeals in 2007 has held that:

1. So it would seem that your reading is held as not being a direct precedent by a Court.

2. Now it is only a matter of time. This has directly challenged and overturned a law. Emerson was not reviewed by the SCOTUS because in the end it upheld the statute. So now we will have a chance to see exactly what the Court will do and perhaps this question will be settled for once and all.

dmk

I took the time to check out the page and I even took the time to go through the report by the Home Office. I made it to page 34. I stopped there because, the numbers say something else entirely.

Property Crime 1999 rate 4.3, 2002/2003 rate 5.0......hmm an increase

Violence 1999 rate 5.4, 2002/2003 rate 6.3.............hmmm another increase.

So well I am to believe that crimes are falling, when even the home offices numbers show they are increasing???

dmk

Oh yes the Great Warren Burger, the same justice who found in the Constitutions the so-called pneumbras that established the Right to Privacy that was not written but implied. Now we are to assume that what was written in the actually document was not what was implied. Some logic there. It just shows the depth to which some will go to uphold their personal views and philosophies. Ahh the Rule of Man and not of Law.

The majority of State Constitutions allow for the keeping and bearing of arms, if that is the case, should we not impose the same logic the Court has used in regards to the standards of decency in relation to imposing the Death Penalty on minors. Since a majority of the States will not execute minors, no states can. Since the majority of states protect as an individual right to keep and bear arms all states should.

dmk

dmk

But it is still recognized as a Militia. Who to say which one is necessary to the state. Considering the fact that National Guard troops can be called to Active Duty and placed under the control of the Federal Government, that what would mean that the only militia available for the defense of the state would be the unorganized militia, hence this militia is more necessary to the defense of the state than the organized militia.

They include this statement as means of justification as did many of the State Consitutions at the time. I am not ignoring the one, but recognizing that it is not a "collective right" but rather an individual right. Those who continue to claim it is only a collective right, ignore the individual right completely. As well as the history and tradition of the Bill or Rights. That name alone says it all, Bill of Rights, since the Constitution bestows rights only upon the Individual, the collective argument is already lost.

Why should I, the Bill of Rights were not enacted unti 1791. Obviously at the time of their enactment they were found important why must I justify it now. The same could be held for any of the amendments by your standard. By the way, governors often utilize the militia during disasters. Although the Federal Government has used FEMA to allow federal help, often it is who - the National Guard that is first called up by the Governor, Oklahoma after the Tornados, California, Arizona, Neveda, and New Mexico have all used the National Guard during forest fires. That is ensure the security of a free state, no where does the amendment say that it must ensure the security of the country.

So in this one instance the words "the right of the people" do not mean the individuals. Try again. Two clauses that make one sentence. The words thought that are used throughout the Amendments remain consistent.

Nowhere does it say if. The Amendment recognizes the need for the state to have a militia, and in having a militia, the amendment also recognizes that the Federal Government cannot infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

dmk

Like I have told you. Look at things in their proper historical perspective. Let's look at the Supreme Court. At this point in time in U.S. History the Supreme Court is a huge joke. A dangerous joke but still a joke.

All you people in this forum take note. If you want to discuss the U.S. Constitution then learn something about it. You babble on and on in total ignorant confusion. Look at the document. I don't care what any Judge says. My interpretation is as valid as any Judge. Why? What are the 3 most important words in the U.S. Constitution. "WE THE PEOPLE". Now study some U.S. History. Transport yourself back in time. You are a colonist that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution needed very badly to ratify the U.S. Constitution and create the United States of America. As a colonist would you be more likely to ratify a document that took your gun away, even if you needed it to provide food for your family, or a document that let you keep your gun. It is that damn simple.

You have answered yourself without knowing it. The U.S. Constitution, what it stands for and what it means belongs to "WE THE PEOPLE". Now if you want to relinquish this right to some Judge or some Court that is your own ignorance. What makes you think Bork is such an expert. I do not like Bork, his beliefs or his political stances. When it comes to the U.S. Constitution Bork has no more say so than me or any other U.S. Citizen. Now your reference to "Bush v Gore". One of the biggest jokes and destructive decisions made in the history of mankind. You have unwittingly proved my point. Look what this Supreme Court decision has wrought upon the whole world. Look at the massive amount of death, destruction and cost this very wrong decision has caused. Yet you want to fall back on the courts to defend your arguments, can you not see how delusional you are? By the way, in my modest opinion, the correct decision in "Bush v Gore" would have been not to hear the case, leave it with the State of Florida but impose a deadline for Florida to render the decision, for National Securities Sake. Now this is what I think the U.S. Constitution prescribes in this situation.

Your bait and switch argument, which is typical of people who know they have lost a debate, will not release you from your obvious defeat. Now you tell me 1 jury of "WE THE PEOPLE" that has to follow the law of the Supreme Court or the U.S. Constitution for that matter. Just another power provided to "WE THE PEOPLE" by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. In other words any jury could ignore any ruling by the U.S. Supreme court regarding gun ownership, and ther is not 1 damn thing your holy sacred body you call the Supreme Court could do about it.