Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

[KBCraig]

I respectfully disagree with this portion of Mr. Gottlieb's evaluation of the Parker Case. The "collective right" argument is not 70 years old; it is of recent vintage.

I imagine he's referring to Miller v. U.S., from 1939.

[frankie_the_yankee]

NEWS RELEASE
SAF SAYS D.C. CIRCUIT DENIAL ON RE-HEARING OF PARKER CASE WAS RIGHT
BELLEVUE, WA –
. . .

“For almost 70 years, a state of confusion has existed over whether the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right, as we are certain it does, rather than affirming some convoluted ‘collective right’ of the states to form militias. That interpretation has been carefully fabricated over the years by anti-gun zealots whose ultimate goal is to strip American citizens of their firearms rights.

I respectfully disagree with this portion of Mr. Gottlieb's evaluation of the Parker Case. The "collective right" argument is not 70 years old; it is of recent vintage.

Chas.

I think the reference was to the way the gun-ban movement and some US Circuit and state courts have twisted and seemingly intentionally misread the Miller decision to fit their gun-ban agenda.

Remember, Miller was a challange to the NFA, the first federal gun control law, that regulated machine guns, short barreled shotguns, etc. Miller did not mount a defense at the Supreme Court level, so he essentially lost by dafault.

My recollection may be a little fuzzy, but I think the Court held that the exercise of the individual right had to have some relavance or relationship to the ability to form or call up a militia. They probably meant that when a militia is called up, members were expected to show up bearing their own arms of a type that was in common use at the time. (I think they even said something like this.)

Then they went on to say that since sawed-off shotguns were not common military weapons (paraphrasing) "....it is not within judicial notice that the Second Amendment protects the possession of such an instrument."

But this appears to have been mostly because Miller did not present a case. If he had, he could have easily shown that sawed-off shotguns were commonly employed as "trench guns" in WW1. Then, it would have been "within judicial notice."

As a result, the pro-gun rights side interprets Miller as protecting the possession of machine guns (which are unarguably militia weapons - see Switzerland) while the anti-gun rights side says Miller only applies to people serving in a militia - i.e. The National Guard.

In this case, the antis are wrong. If the Supremes take this case, we will win. Then, as noted by others, any so-called "gun control" law would have to pass at minimum a test of "reasonableness". And to some extent, would be gun banners would have to be able to show how their proposed gun ban could be expected to be effective.

These are very difficult tests. Many gun control laws now on the books can be expected to be thrown out.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Only recently has Miller been cited for the premise that the Second Amendment is a "collective right." I don't like seeing SAF buying into the Brady Campaign contention that the D.C. Court turned it's back on 70 years of appellate court decisions holding there is no individual right.

Chas.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Only recently has Miller been cited for the premise that the Second Amendment is a "collective right." I don't like seeing SAF buying into the Brady Campaign contention that the D.C. Court turned it's back on 70 years of appellate court decisions holding there is no individual right.

Chas.

I hear you.

But we're winning. Soon, the collective right model will be as dead as Dredd Scott.