The Second Amendment Is a Gun-Control Amendment
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/32756-focus-the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment
This was an astounding constitutional reading, or misreading, as original as Citizens United, and as idiosyncratic as the reasoning in Bush v. Gore, which found a conclusive principle designed to be instantly discarded—or, for that matter, as the readiness among the court’s right wing to overturn a health-care law passed by a supermajority of the legislature over a typo. Anyone who wants to both grasp that decision’s radicalism and get a calm, instructive view of what the Second Amendment does say, and was intended to say, and was always before been understood to say, should read Justice John Paul Stevens’s brilliant, persuasive dissent in that case. Every person who despairs of the sanity of the country should read it, at least once, not just for its calm and irrefutable case-making but as a reminder of what sanity sounds like.
Stevens, a Republican judge appointed by a Republican President, brilliantly analyzes the history of the amendment, making it plain that for Scalia, et al., to arrive at their view, they have to reference not the deliberations that produced the amendment but, rather, bring in British common law and lean on interpretations that arose long after the amendment was passed. Both “keep arms” and “bear arms,” he demonstrates, were, in the writers’ day, military terms used in military contexts. (Gary Wills has usefully illuminated this truth in the New York Review of Books.) The intent of the Second Amendment, Stevens explains, was obviously to secure “to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.” The one seemingly sound argument in the Scalia decision—that “the people” in the Second Amendment ought to be the same “people” referenced in the other amendments, that is, everybody—is exactly the interpretation that the preamble was meant to guard against.
Stevens’s dissent should be read in full, but his conclusion in particular is clear and ringing:
Justice Stevens and his colleagues were not saying, a mere seven years ago, that the gun-control legislation in dispute in Heller alone was constitutional within the confines of the Second Amendment. They were asserting that essentially every kind of legislation concerning guns in the hands of individuals was compatible with the Second Amendment—indeed, that regulating guns in individual hands was one of the purposes for which the amendment was offered.
So there is no need to amend the Constitution, or to alter the historical understanding of what the Second Amendment meant. No new reasoning or tortured rereading is needed to reconcile the Constitution with common sense. All that is necessary for sanity to rule again, on the question of guns, is to restore the amendment to its commonly understood meaning as it was articulated by this wise Republican judge a scant few years ago. And all you need for that is one saner and, in the true sense, conservative Supreme Court vote. One Presidential election could make that happen.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Johnston, posting a link to wiki: "I know exactly what I'm talking about" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
As I wrote in my previous post, you (Johnston) should cite exactly what you're driving at, rather than post a link & leave readers to muddle thru it with blank stares trying to decipher any point you have. When you do what you did - post a 'Liar's Link' with no citations - your credibility dissolves & readers can see that you can't really rebut.
in fact, Johnston's wiki link supports my case far more than Johnston's: Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act {1934} as an unconstitutional violation of the {2ndA}. District Court Judge Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment... In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the govt's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.
It seems that Frank Miller was not going to appear before any ol' stupid supreme court anyway, eh Johnston? it seems that judge ragon preempted miller for a sure win in the scotus, eh Johnston?
To put it bluntly, litigants frank miller & Layton are relatively immaterial to the crux of the 1939 miller decision when considering how the court viewed the 2nd amendment, the excerpt which I cited. No more than emerson's restraining order & subsequent gun purchase had to do with the interpretation of 2ndA as an individual rkba.
Emerson & Miller were simply pawns which surfaced, which resulted in two diametrically contrary 2ndA views in miller & heller.
excerpts from Johnston's wiki link (re the 7 post miller 2ndA cases, excluding scalia led heller):
Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall) The leading case is US 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 common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." 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.
I don't see how Adams v Williams helps you a bit, Johnston. Care to expound?
Lewis v. United States (1980); (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"
; US v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, (1974); US v. Johnson, 1974); Cody v. US, (1972) (latter 3 cases holding, respectively, that {xxx}do not violate 2ndA..).
See Johnston what I mean? this only confuses readers, you need to expound.
Printz v. US (1997) Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in US v. Miller(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." The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the {2ndA}.
Well this is what you should've noted I suppose, but were you afraid to cite the 5-4 decision to counter miller's unanimous 8-0 decision? or was it you were embarrassed to have to reveal who the 5 justices were who ruled in this manner which deflated the actual miller decision in the last sentence above?
Justices (majority): Anthony M. Kennedy (libertarian views), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (conservative), Antonin Scalia (RW) (writing for the Court), Clarence Thomas (RW)
Justices Dissenting Stephen Breyer (dem/liberal), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter (Repub but generally sided w liberals), John Paul Stevens (generally sided w liberals)
So Johnston is possibly relying on the printz reference to miller, the pritz case which was a rightwing majority opinion, dissented by the liberal side of the court.
What absurd point of yours do you think disproved the miller collective rights opinion, Johnston?
...for the RPG.
Personally, I'd trust you with either the RPG or the nuke more than I'd trust Cheney or some others.
Consider:
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the federal government's) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive (of the government) clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
(underlined text added by me)
...declares individual rights and limits governmental powers regarding those rights.
Works for me. 
