Thread: crickets...
View Single Post
Old 11-06-2017, 09:31 PM   #56
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.
The Supreme Court has never endorsed a militia dependent right. The right has always been recognized by SCOTUS to be possessed by individual citizens independent of any militia enrollment status or attchment.

Your chronology is backwards. The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations first appeared in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower (Circuit) court cases. Those two opinions spun US v Miller (1939) on its head and ignored /dismissed the determinations of SCOTUS to arrive at these new "collective right" interpretations.

Those theories held sway in the lower federal courts and state courts until DC v Heller in 2008, where SCOTUS re-affirmed the individual right, relied on US v Cruikshank (1876) and Miller's precedent -- one prong of Miller's protection criteria (in common use) -- to invalidate DC's statutes and 66 years of lower federal court perversions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.
I agree. It will take decades to unwind the dozens of mid-20th Century lower federal court and state court decisions that sustained hundreds of unconstitutional gun control laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Says the guy that says a true examination of the issue is TLDR.



You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
ReelinRod is offline