Committee votes on AWB

[jimmy the one]

38. misleading & out of context

hansberry: "clearly", and yet the Miller court did not even ask whether Mr Miller was a member of any militia or was on duty at the time of his arrest.

Not asking doesn't mean they didn't know that he was just a member of the unorganized militia (if even that). That does'nt matter, the court decided whether miller (& layton) had a constitutional right to possess his sawed off shotgun, as he claimed 2ndA protection. The court did not decide whether he was legally allowed to own a firearm.
The 1939 court said to miller you are barking up the wrong tree by claiming 2ndA protection, since it doesn't protect an individual rkba, it only constitutionally protects gun ownership in the collective sense incumbent upon a WRM.

hansberry: Was the NRA around when Bliss was decided? When Aymette was decoided? When Nunn was decided?

No. Who cares? State case law wavered & waffled with local opinions tending to prevail. Tennessee was likely a frontier state about then.

hansberry: From dissent authored by Breyer: The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)

Observe readers, how hansberry above lifted breyer OUT OF CONTEXT, to make it appear he was contending an individual rkba. Observe breyer in fuller context:

breyer in fuller context shows hansberry for a charlatan: In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1)?The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred;
(2)?As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller,(1939); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(3)?The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller..
(4)?The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897).
My approach to this case, while involving the first three points, primarily concerns the fourth. I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. And I shall then ask whether the Amendment nevertheless permits the District handgun restriction at issue here.
Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/dissent2.html

Breyer was stating 4 criteria which he felt the court unanimously agreed formed a 'starting point' from which debate on 'interpreting & applying' the 2ndA ' could proceed. Breyer was NOT claiming he adhered to an individual rkba as hansberry deceptively tries to imply. Breyer was saying that the entire court subscribed to the belief that the 4 propositions formed a 'starting point' from which the 2ndA differences evolved.

hansberry: From dissent authored by STEVENS: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Are you kidding me? are you using this sophomoric approach to suggest that stevens was arguing for a pure individual rkba anywhere? he was surmising that when one considers 2ndA 'AS' an individual rkba, it does not say anything about the scope, that is the scope to what extent the handgun ban is constitutional or not. DUH.

scalia, heller: Justice Breyer’s {note not stevens} assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

er, no scalia, it's you & yours who were profoundly mistaken.
Hansberry, you've been shown to misinterpret stevens & take breyer out of context, in a pathetic attempt to mislead readers into thinking they both somehow supported an individual rkba. Stop with this already, you might fool gunnuts but the truth proves you to be just another spindoctor.