What constitutes a "brearable arm" as thet term is used with regard to the 2nd?

Hello, Betty!

 

You read too much into some things and not enough into others.

 

Reads too much into others... like Miller held the 2nd does not protect sawed off shotguns?

 

Which conveniently avoided the issue put to you.

 

At some point, the SCotUS will define "bearable arms". The context for this term is laid out in both Miller and Heller.

 

That's not what I'm referring to. His post is confused as to Heller. The court will hopefully not "define" anything. But who knows?

 

Since you asked, there is something in Miller to please everybody, as I imagine you know.
The following passage exemplifies how the Court rules as narrowly as it can and only on specific issues before them (as opposed to "Your honor, may I own a sawed off shotgun or a bazooka?")

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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The italics means "we can't say based on the record before us, and we're not going to assume one way or the other, that there is anything unconstitutional about the statute." That's different from "the 2nd Amendment emphatically does (or does not) protect short barreled guns."

I think they then remanded the case to direct the lower courts to give the parties a chance to present more facts, and then the whole thing withered on the vine. This frankly is what they typically hope for so that they don't get asked to draw bright lines. Why they don't want to be drawing bright lines themselves is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

 

Somehow, in all this, you avoid admitting you were wrong about Miller.

The part overlooked the most in Miller?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Not the militia, not the people in the militia, but the citizen, without qualifier.

 

I can only surmise now that you have me confused with some anti gun person here who claims that the 2nd Amendment only pertains to the militia. I'm not and never said I was, so there was no need to put "to the citizen" in red type as though I were illiterate. Acknowledge this in your very next post, or I'll be forced to conclude you are uninterested in civil discussion and will bid you a hearty adieu.

 

Well, it kinda does matter. You will presumably not vote for, say, a Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein or Chuck Schumer for POTUS if you want federal judges who read the 2nd Amendment as broadly as possible.

 

I agree with that

I never voted for a gun grabber and never will

 

no it isn't. it's in plain English.

heller says exactly what I said it does, and I quoted them saying so.

 

I quoted them saying otherwise. It's why you can't own nukes, or machine guns made after 1986.

 

The Hughes amendment has never been challenged in court to determine its constitutionality. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the united state supreme court has stated that it is allowable. At the moment it is simply assumed, and nothing more.

As to the matter of nuclear weaponry, the united states federal government has never actually outlawed the possession of such by private individuals. Therefore it cannot be claimed that Heller said anything on that particular matter either.

 

The ruling in heller states otherwise.

The ruling in heller states otherwise.

 

No... I -correctly- identify you as a person who incorrectly claimed Miller was an example of a SCotUS holding stating the 2nd does not protect a particular class of firearms, in this case sawed-off shotguns.

Your claim to this effect was, indeed wrong; you still refuse to admit it; indeed, you -cannot- cite any ruling from the SCotUS that holds the 2nd does not protect a particular class of firearm, in direct opposition to your rather arrogant statement that "Yes, we can cite such a ruling. (Why don't you politely ask whether something can be done before declaring that it cannot?)"

Why is it so hard for you to admit your are wrong when you know you are?
Do they teach arrogance and intellectual dishonesty on law school?

 

No, but it does teach us try and ascertain what our clients are trying to say. I have at this point no idea what you are trying to say. You have a chip on your shoulder about gun rights, and I am tired of you daring the rest of us to knock it off.

Go buy all the weapons you want and good luck to you.

 

Why is it so hard for you to admit your are wrong, when you know you are?

 

TOG 6,
Here is something to read about Columbia v. Heller:

Source: http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and...-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

My contention with this decision if the highlighted phrase of “in common use at the time”.

Is there a database that reveals the type of firearm that is currently commonly used in 2017, 2015, 2013, etc.? This phrase leaves this decision of Columbia v. Heller wide open in the absence of a database that explicitly defines through description exactly what “the” or “those” firearms that are commonly used at this specific time and era. It is decisions such as these that incite people to believe that there is judicial activism in an actual and real sense.

 

Likely not. If necessary, "Common use" would have to be proven thru other means for firearms other than handguns.
But, even the 9th circuit would have a hard time denying that all classes of firearms short of automatic weapons are in common use.

 

TOG 6,
It is obvious that you do see the dilemma that the court has created with their non-specified description of what a "commonly used" firearm is. To me, this is activism. This is intentional.

 

It is intentionally broad, when accompanied by the 'traditionally lawful uses' clause. Rather than mention specific classes and uses, it covers as many as possible with wide strokes.

 

Maybe if I knew what you were getting at, I would. A sawed off shotgun to me is a particular "class" and Miller lost the case, after invoking the Second Amendment. If you were a client, I would advise you to neither acquire a sawed off shotgun nor go, ever, to the Supreme Court saying "You guys never said the Second Amendment does not protect sawed off shotguns!!"

I quoted the operative language of the case and told you what I think it means. You don't like it, get another opinion. Just tell the lawyer you want a money back guarantee, because you're going to lose.

 

I'm not sure I can make it more clear.

Contrary to your claim, Miller does NOT hold that the 2nd does not protect the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun - the text of the holding only states that the court cannot say it DOES protect the right, which is not the same thing.

Thus, you are wrong in your claim that you can indeed cite a holding that states a particular class of firearm is not protected by the 2nd, and wrong in your citation of Miller to that effect.

Why is it so hard for you to admit your are wrong, when you know you are?

 

You are either pettifogging or misunderstanding the import of the court's language. I do think you are honestly trying, but for some reason ....

Go get a sawed off and report yourself to the FBI. Watch what happens when you tell the district judge what the Miller case did and did not say.