The stupidity of "magazine control"

With whatauthority do you assert that banning pistol grips is unconstitutional. Apparently youve not read the 94 assault weapons ban. Noone ever said it was Constitutional or unconstitutional. (Has the USSC upheld a law like the NFA with a decision on pistol grips??)

Heres the Us v Miller decision and its background from Wikipedia



.



United States v. Miller


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.



United States v. Miller





Supreme Court of the United States


Argued March 30, 1939
Decided May 15, 1939



Full case name

United States v. Jack Miller, et al.







Prior history

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas



Holding



The National Firearms Act — as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it — was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.



Court membership







Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes







Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds ·Pierce Butler
Harlan F. Stone ·Owen J. Roberts
Hugo Black ·Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter ·William O. Douglas




Case opinions



Majority

McReynolds, joined by Hughes, Butler, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter



Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.



Laws applied



U.S. Const. amend. II


United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.





Contents
[hide] 1 Background
2 Decision
3 Interpretations
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links


[edit] Background

United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service),[1] with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2]

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[4]

[edit] Decision

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that 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, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Rational Basis Review (to say nothing of Intermediate Scrutiny and Strict Scrutiny) require the government to have a good reason for any law that impacts a fundamental right.

There is no good reason for banning a pistol grip.

I'm not sure I would use the term "lying" to describe either ruling.

The Miller ruling did a good job of describing the right of a militiaman to buy military weapons and keep them at home.

The Heller ruling did a good job of describing the right of non-militiamen to have handguns.

Heller glossed over the right to carry handguns in public, but that subject is working it way through the appeals courts right now. We're only a couple years from the Supreme Court expanding Heller to include the right to carry handguns when you go about in public (even in large cities like New York and Chicago).

Both rights are equally valid, and I don't fault the Supreme Court for protecting either one.

I wouldn't mind the Supreme Court ordering the government to bring back the militia (as is mandated by the first half of the Second Amendment), but I'm content with how things are going.


----


I'm off to see the Hobbit (was too sick to see it over the holidays as I had originally planned).

If there are any massacres in a Michigan theater tonight, and I never post again, I was probably one of the victims.

(Hope that doesn't happen, but I guess these days you never know.)

so you are an arbiter? wow, I think you are waaay too full of yourself dude. This is opinion and evidence. Your evidence is all opinion. Just because you cite a concept doesnt mean youve convincingly stated where its been so used wrt your initial "Opinion"

Verstehen?


PS, do you know the difference between a "decision' and a "sunet provision"?


I sorta think not.

I guess you missed the vote in NY.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html

The Supreme Court always uses either Rational Basis Review, Intermediate Scrutiny, or Strict Scrutiny when they determine whether or not to strike down a law that impacts a fundamental right.

The fact that the odds of them using one of those three principles is literally 100% is a pretty strong indicator that one of the three will be applied to the question of an assault weapons ban.


And that there is no real reason to ban pistol grips is a pretty clear fact too.

I mean, can you come up with any plausible reason whatsoever why pistol grips should be banned from rifles?


Anyway, I have no idea why you are so set on banning pistol grips, but you were instrumental in derailing magazine limits.

If it wasn't for all this strenuous insistence on banning pistol grips, we would be facing a hard push right now for a stand-alone limit on magazine sizes.

Your assistance to the cause may have been inadvertent and even unwilling, but you were absolutely perfect.


-----


Back from the Hobbit, BTW. Safe and sound and no massacres.

No, I saw it. I took great note of their ban on semi-auto shotguns. Great way for the legislators to endear themselves to the duck hunters.

My comment was in reference to federal law. Congress is not going to pass either an assault weapons ban or a limit on magazine size now.

As for the various state and local bans on assault weapons, they will all be struck down by the Supreme Court. And unless there is clear severability, the magazine limits will all go down as collateral damage.


Perhaps then those states will try magazine limits "alone".

After the Batman massacre, I started to consider whether a stand-alone 10 round limit would pass muster, but then I was stunned to see how insistent people were on tying magazine limits to a ban on pistol grips. I ultimately decided not to waste my time worrying about the Constitutionality of a 10 round limit, because it was so clear that any such limit was doomed to be tied to assault weapons and then struck down as collateral damage.

I can't for the life of me understand why the enemy insists on sabotaging their own legislation, but the old adage applies: When your opponent insists on destroying themselves, get out of the way and let them do it.

Anyway, when we finally get to the point where some states are passing stand-alone 10 round limits, then maybe I'll devote some of my energy to trying to figure out how Constitutional it is.


(I rather suspect that even if 10 round limits pass muster with the courts, 7 round limits like what NY just passed will not.)

You continue to insist that pistol grips were banned even though they weren't. Your arguments make no sense sometimes.

SATURDAY WAS GUN APPRECIATIION DAY.
5 PEOPLE WERE SHOT AT GUN SHOWS ON GUN APPRECIATION DAY.
WAY TO GO, GUN-NUTS.

Oh, this is about GUNS! I thought that some people were trying to ban Playboy!

It is. They're not going to ban Playboy, but there will only be two articles per issue.

The BIG PA Sportmens show(held at the PA Farm SHow Compex) is now going to be boycotted by the gun sellers like Cabela's because the show producer specified that they dont feature assault weapons at the show.
Looks like the children haters are making their point.

And here I thought Cabala was mostly about muzzle loaders.

Cabelas sells fish neckties and charcoal grilles to carry up your tree stand. They even sell the little John Deere dune buggies

And assault rifles, unless they're boycotting on general principles.

I did not hate children
when I first armed myself, for personal defense.





David

Enough with your silly half truths. Assault weapons bans are primarily bans of pistol grips, any you know it.

As if a pistol grip were at all a danger to children.

Still, you were very useful in derailing Obama's push for limits on magazines.

I don't know if they sell assault rifles, but they are welcome to boycott on general principles.

Any part of the gun industry that sides with Obama against America's gun owners, needs to be boycotted into bankruptcy.