US v. MILLER

[russell_smith93]

I have a couple random thoughts here.
1. as the supreme court has ruled a poll tax is unconstitutional how can a $200 tax on a nfa "accessory" be constitutional, ie one should not have to pay an exorbitant tax to exercise one's rights.

2. could the $200 tax be considered a violation of the 14th amendments equal protection clause, unfairly discriminating against   the poor?

[nonwo]

tjeffries wrote:
Kahr PM45 wrote:Your point is valid but the whole basis of Miller is that the second amendment applies to the 'Militia' or those who would become the militia whereas Heller validates that it is an individual right which applies to us all.  Immediately following the statement of the right is 'shall not be infringed'. Heller showed that the whole militia clause was just an introductory phrase and is not important.

You're correct that Heller decided the Second Amendment applied to individual rights, while at the time Miller was heard it was still a given that we all were the militia.  If you take a look at Miller while in the lower court, the ATF's attorney got quite a lecture from the judge for failing to recognize that.  Had Miller not been destitute and probably dead at the time it was heard by the SCOTUS, the Miller decision would have had a different ending.  

Both cases are important, but without Miller, Heller probably wouldn't have become necessary, depriving us of an excellent opportunity to visit the sites in DC   Either way we look at it, its nice to have more than one tool in the box as we attend to the job of fixing this mess  

we ARE all militia. the US military cannot be deployed on american soil. every time this country has been attacked it has been the armed citizen who fought and won. i believe MILLER quotes thomas jefferson who states the second amendment is the final "check and balance" to keep the government honest. for example; let's say a president fills DC with his friends; like obama did. and then signs a stimulus bill which if you work the numbers will create 350,000 government jobs which means another 350,000 obamanites in his army to take from the rich and give to the poor. THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NEVER MEANT MORE TO AMERICA. the man's ideals of a socialist country go against our very constitution. the constitution he vowed to protect. MILLER also proves that organizations like the NRA have sold us out. why weren't they in court with the first assault weapons ban? this is why i think the citizens must stand up for our rights. we can't just send a check somewhere and think our rights are being protected. we've done that for too long. obama MUST disarm us to continue his coup.

I must agree w/ Redthunder & the majority of you on this question of U.S. v. Miller.  You must realize that the Fed. Constitution, interalia, must be taken in the context of the times in which it was promulgated.  All except the civil servants were in the militia & there was no standing army.  So ea. indiv. militiaman had to supply his own arms & accouterment to keep the peace in his community and country.  Of course his arms would be those current for warfare.  So the 1st phrase of Amend. II is law & necessary; meant all the individuals on the soil (universal) were automatically militiamen.  The Miller court realized this but questioned the suitability of the choice of arms as appropriate for warfare.  Of course, as you’ve noted, Miller died & could not argue this point of law.  I believe it is T10 U.S.C., current statute, which mandates all to be in the militia.  Most state statutes will also concur.
  As to Heller, parties residing in D.C., I believe, sorry folks, the S.Ct. was wrong.  The actual term “democracy” is alive & well in D.C., not the independent states.  The UNITED STATES being the “democracy” where the U.S. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the FEDERAL ZONE, D.C. & its possessions, has absolute power (sovereignty) over the UNITED STATES, including D.C.  In this FEDERAL ZONE, only civil rights exists as granted by the U.S. Congress.  The Fed. Const. does not apply.

Contrary to Turnercm, a standing army is not necessary & was contrary to the founding principles where the citizen militia was the force to repulse aggression.  If there were no standing army & the only force was us the militia, we wouldn’t be arguing about this today.

There must be a distinction between “civil” & “absolute” rights.

It is my view that we first take control over the respective states & thru the states we control the U.S. Fed. government.  One small baby step is for all states to pass their respective sovereignty resolutions.  Then to amend their respective state const. to hold their officials accountable & to stand up against the Federal take over.

Agreed time is of the essence.

I too agree that the NRA has sold us, patriots of the republics, out.  Sorry to be so contrary & blunt.

[tjeffries]

tjeffries wrote:
Kahr PM45 wrote:Your point is valid but the whole basis of Miller is that the second amendment applies to the 'Militia' or those who would become the militia whereas Heller validates that it is an individual right which applies to us all.  Immediately following the statement of the right is 'shall not be infringed'. Heller showed that the whole militia clause was just an introductory phrase and is not important.

You're correct that Heller decided the Second Amendment applied to individual rights, while at the time Miller was heard it was still a given that we all were the militia.  If you take a look at Miller while in the lower court, the ATF's attorney got quite a lecture from the judge for failing to recognize that.  Had Miller not been destitute and probably dead at the time it was heard by the SCOTUS, the Miller decision would have had a different ending.  

Both cases are important, but without Miller, Heller probably wouldn't have become necessary, depriving us of an excellent opportunity to visit the sites in DC   Either way we look at it, its nice to have more than one tool in the box as we attend to the job of fixing this mess  

we ARE all militia. the US military cannot be deployed on american soil. every time this country has been attacked it has been the armed citizen who fought and won. i believe MILLER quotes thomas jefferson who states the second amendment is the final "check and balance" to keep the government honest. for example; let's say a president fills DC with his friends; like obama did. and then signs a stimulus bill which if you work the numbers will create 350,000 government jobs which means another 350,000 obamanites in his army to take from the rich and give to the poor. THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NEVER MEANT MORE TO AMERICA. the man's ideals of a socialist country go against our very constitution. the constitution he vowed to protect. MILLER also proves that organizations like the NRA have sold us out. why weren't they in court with the first assault weapons ban? this is why i think the citizens must stand up for our rights. we can't just send a check somewhere and think our rights are being protected. we've done that for too long. obama MUST disarm us to continue his coup.

I must agree w/ Redthunder & the majority of you on this question of U.S. v. Miller.  You must realize that the Fed. Constitution, interalia, must be taken in the context of the times in which it was promulgated.  All except the civil servants were in the militia & there was no standing army.  So ea. indiv. militiaman had to supply his own arms & accouterment to keep the peace in his community and country.  Of course his arms would be those current for warfare.  So the 1st phrase of Amend. II is law & necessary; meant all the individuals on the soil (universal) were automatically militiamen.  The Miller court realized this but questioned the suitability of the choice of arms as appropriate for warfare.  Of course, as you’ve noted, Miller died & could not argue this point of law.  I believe it is T10 U.S.C., current statute, which mandates all to be in the militia.  Most state statutes will also concur.
  As to Heller, parties residing in D.C., I believe, sorry folks, the S.Ct. was wrong.  The actual term “democracy” is alive & well in D.C., not the independent states.  The UNITED STATES being the “democracy” where the U.S. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the FEDERAL ZONE, D.C. & its possessions, has absolute power (sovereignty) over the UNITED STATES, including D.C.  In this FEDERAL ZONE, only civil rights exists as granted by the U.S. Congress.  The Fed. Const. does not apply.

Contrary to Turnercm, a standing army is not necessary & was contrary to the founding principles where the citizen militia was the force to repulse aggression.  If there were no standing army & the only force was us the militia, we wouldn’t be arguing about this today.

There must be a distinction between “civil” & “absolute” rights.

It is my view that we first take control over the respective states & thru the states we control the U.S. Fed. government.  One small baby step is for all states to pass their respective sovereignty resolutions.  Then to amend their respective state const. to hold their officials accountable & to stand up against the Federal take over.

Agreed time is of the essence.

I too agree that the NRA has sold us, patriots of the republics, out.  Sorry to be so contrary & blunt.

Welcome to the forums nonwo, excellent first post

The recent sovereignty resolutions have warmed my old heart, I'm hoping they continue, the feds will look good with their faces covered in egg

Keep an eye on the courts, the baby steps are about to begin...............

[russell_smith93]

Don't forget oral arguments for McDonald are scheduled for march. this could have much impact on this as well

[tjeffries]

Don't forget oral arguments for McDonald are scheduled for march. this could have much impact on this as well

I'm looking forward to this case, not that they couldn't screw it up, but this could open the flood gates coast to coast.  I'd love to see them revisit Miller.