Weird How The NRA Knew What an AR-15 Was For in 1962, But Now They Claim It is For Personal Protection

Jul 2011
63,800
12,959
Old NYC/DMS
#61
YOU do. YOU provided the quote I commented on.
Anything I say not accurate?

Thank you, I always drive safely. It's the other assholes out there I worry about.

you are old, you probably drive 40mph in the left lane with your left blinker on, screaming like you do here at all the "asshole drivers" you are impeding in the fast lane. come on, you know it's true.
 
Jul 2011
63,800
12,959
Old NYC/DMS
#62
The NRA was a whole different animal in 1962.
They were a gun education and safety organization who promoted responsible gun ownership and lobbied for gun control laws. There was a time when NRA president Karl Frederick praised the national gun control acts passed by Congress and said that he didn't believe in carrying guns without a reason.
Then the hardliners came along - a bunch of political operatives led by Harlon Carter who executed a hostile takeover of the organization and started turning it into a lobbying arm of the gun industry and a political machine that punished anyone who tried to impose any sensible gun laws.
Their answer to everything became "More Guns".

We're the only industrialized country in the world that has allowed an organization like the NRA to amass such power, and we have the world's highest rates of gun deaths and mass shootngs to show for it.


Who has more power, the NRA of the pharmacutical companies that said oxy was non addictive?
 
Jul 2011
63,800
12,959
Old NYC/DMS
#68
This is where you need to learn to read beyond the first paragraph of a Wiki entry...

Decision[edit]
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for 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, as required by the Act, held:

  1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
  2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
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.
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.
In addition about the decision, Justice McReynolds wrote:

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.[6]
Interpretations[edit]
Gun control advocates argue that, for over six decades, the United States Circuit Courts, with very few exceptions, have cited Miller in rejecting challenges to federal firearms regulations.[7]


Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected. Furthermore, such advocates frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns (with 20 inch barrels) have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this.[8] Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for judges to know otherwise. Two of the justices involved in the decision had prior military experience, Justice Black as a Captain in the field artillery during World War I and Justice Frankfurter as a Major in the Army legal service; however, there is no way to know if they were personally aware of the use of shotguns by American troops. During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[9]

Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court for "further proceedings" that never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.[5]

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned Miller in only 7 subsequent cases: Konigsberg (1961); Atlanta Motel (1964); Adams (1972); Lewis (1980); Printz (1997); Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010); Justice James Clark McReynolds authored the decision in United States v. Miller which was the only Supreme Court case that directly involved the Second Amendment until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.[10]

The Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:

Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. However, compare the qualified language of the Second Amendment: "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." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964); (concurring opinion of Black; Footnote 11)"... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall)The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia".
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
— Id., at 178-179.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas)Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense". Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment...We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."



blarrghhh "you need to read"...


then post some random quote from it thinking you made a point.


FAIL
 
Jul 2011
63,800
12,959
Old NYC/DMS
#70
same thing. not all mass shooters are white. there was that asian guy who went postal at his university. and the muslim couple who shot up a bunch of folks at the hospice where the husband worked, for some damn reason.

The dc snipers, as well as all the mass shootings in our inner cities the racist left media loves to ignore.
 

Similar Discussions