Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 35 years of gun sales, showing gun control's unintended consequences [View all]Surf Fishing Guru
(115 posts)31. Bluntly true . . .
jimmy the one said:
I have no idea what you are driving at, except maybe that you like stupid movies.
Just that if you are going to quote something from the US government's brief, at least make it something that the Court actually used, not something you imagine it used.
jimmy the one said:
The 1938 Dept of Justice provided the below amicus brief, citing adams, to the 1938/39 supreme court, which the court used as a basis in its ruling as presented in my previous posts. Thus the 1938/39 supreme court was bolstered by the amicus brief. Duh:
Again, how exactly did the Supreme Court use Adams as a "basis" in, and to "bolster" their Miller opinion?
The Court took no notice of the case, it included no reference to Adams as an authority in footnote 3 listing what the Court considered informative lower federal and state cases.
What the Solicitor General (and you) quote as the primary holding of Adams, that the 2ndA "refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights" does not appear in US v Miller (or any SCOTUS opinion).
jimmy the one said:
By a 5-4 margin was heller,
The 5-4 tally was to invalidate the DC statues; on the specific question of whether the 2ndA secures either a "collective right" or an "individual right", Heller was 9-0 for recognizing and securing an individual right. Haven't you ever read the Heller dissents?
jimmy the one said:
That bluntly, is fos.
No, it is absolutely is bluntly true. The rebel states justified their racially discriminatory laws forbidding Blacks to possess arms, on the fact that the federal Militia Act of 1792 only permitted "free white citizens" to enroll.
The many rebel states worded their constitution's right to arms as only being secured for whites (e.g., Aymette's quote of Antebellum Tennessee's provision) and there were state judicial decisions that held for that premise.
The premise died out after Reconstruction and those states with racially discriminatory language were forced to rework their RKBA provision to align with the non-discriminatory 2nd Amendment to gain readmission to the Union.
The discriminatory premise was resurrected in 1942 in Cases v US, to ignore SCOTUS and to condition the federal RKBA/2ndA for all US citizens, to just enrolled / active members of the militia.
Sorry, that's the real 18th & 19th Century history in the states and the 20th Century provenance in the federal system of your "militia right" theory.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
35 years of gun sales, showing gun control's unintended consequences [View all]
krispos42
Jan 2022
OP
Had Democrats not pushed for gun control so strongly over the last few decades,
Dial H For Hero
Jan 2022
#2
The antigun activists on this site haven't the faintest interest in debating facts.
Dial H For Hero
Jan 2022
#9