!!

Hello, Guest!

You are viewing the GunLink forums as a guest.  CLICK HERE to register for the forums and unlock more features, hidden forums and the ability post in topics, vote in polls, see poll results and more.

Tandemkross

Author Topic: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?  (Read 5423 times)

Offline leadfarmer

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: 1
  • GunLink Member
why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« on: October 29, 2015, 11:06:07 AM »
New guy with a question here.  I've been thinking about this alot lately.

They nailed Miller under NFA because:
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization."

US law says that the militia includes "(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia"

If 2A protects "weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia" why doesn't it protect things like machine guns, short barrels, silencers, and other things that are obviously "in common use" by the organized militia.  Doesn't the NG and other mil branches use those things? 

Why doesn't 2A stop the NFA from infringing on them?

GunLink Discussion Forums

why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« on: October 29, 2015, 11:06:07 AM »

Log in or register to disable this ad

Offline masfonos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
  • Karma: 9
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2015, 04:46:40 PM »
Because the Miller decision was flat out wrong.  They screwed up.  SBS in general have been used by the military since at least WWI.  It should have been overturned on appeal, but Miller's side was a no-show (wasn't it something like was too poor to pay his lawyer and then he died?).

Maybe they were playing with the words to say that *that particular* SBS had not been used by the military, but that would take a pretty thick headed judge to come up with that reasoning. 

Offline leadfarmer

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: 1
  • GunLink Member
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2015, 01:16:01 PM »
It's stupid all the way around.  The rest of the legal definition of militia from US Law says

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



How old was Miller?  Was he in the group described above?  If so wouldn't him (or anyone else in that group) posessing such a gun mean that it was "used in militia"?

Since NFA the only reason that people in that group DON'T have those guns is because they illegally banned them.  They defend banning some guns because they're "dangerous and unsual" but the only reason they are "unusual" is because they banned them!  Of course there aren't machineguns and SBRs and AOWs in every gun owners home... it's almost impossible to get them!

Offline masfonos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
  • Karma: 9
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2015, 09:29:49 AM »
LOL.  Gun laws applied fairly, equally, consistently, with common sense or within the bounds of the Constitution?  That would be "unusual".


Offline AUGer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2015, 09:11:43 AM »
We're in interesting times.  We got good calls in Heller and McDonald but they were both 5-4.  There are a couple of NFA cases going.  If a case gets in front of SCOTUS and ties together 2A and the Heller, McDonald and Miller decisions maybe ... just maybe ... we will get another good decision. 

It sounds risky when we get close decisions on something that should be obvious.  I think anyone pushing the issue needs to step lightly and make sure they have a airtight case before pushing it too far.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 09:15:04 AM by AUGer »

Offline leadfarmer

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: 1
  • GunLink Member
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2015, 10:44:35 AM »
Step lightly?

"Shall not be infringed"

If anyone from the president to the supreme courts or inferior courts to legislators had a shred of common sense they could read the constitution and it would clear all of this up real quick.  NFA held up because of a misunderstanding or on a technicality and should have been overturned.  Even if it did hold up, the decision should allow the same guns as the military has.  Machine gun ban only exists because of a fake vote.

Offline DieselDude

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2015, 10:53:07 AM »
I agree but sadly that isn't how it works.  2A has been infringed little by little for decades and now we're getting to the point where they are talking about confiscation in New York.  We the people have put up with it and accepted it and continued to vote for people that keep doing teh same thing or don't do anything about out.  AFAIK the SC doesn't want to hear any of the bad cases so we're pretty much stuck with it.

Offline masfonos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
  • Karma: 9
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2016, 06:43:23 PM »
AFAIK the SC doesn't want to hear any of the bad cases so we're pretty much stuck with it.

Some of the SC is getting pretty old.  Every POTUS election is important, but the next one might sway the SCOTUS in a big way.  Could you imagine the condition we'd be in with one or two more leftist activist justices?  I hope that the sea change in some state, local and congressional elections carries on this November.

Offline leadfarmer

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: 1
  • GunLink Member
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2016, 04:26:41 PM »
AFAIK the SC doesn't want to hear any of the bad cases so we're pretty much stuck with it.

Some of the SC is getting pretty old.  Every POTUS election is important, but the next one might sway the SCOTUS in a big way.  Could you imagine the condition we'd be in with one or two more leftist activist justices?  I hope that the sea change in some state, local and congressional elections carries on this November.

Next president gets guaranteed at least one, probably 2 maybe more seats to fill.  If it goes bad, bye bye guns.  Forget another look at Miller they will be overturning every pro second ruling and the libs won't be able to put 2A cases in front of them fast enough.

Offline rutlege

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: why doesn't Miller allow civillians to have military guns?
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2019, 09:25:48 AM »
Miller doesn't "allow" anyone to have anything. The Second Amendment is supposed to PREVENT the government from infringing on our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Not just including military arms but ESPECIALLY military arms. When we can't even get the conversation past whether or not we should be able to have bump stocks or pistol braces or AR15s in the hands of lowly subjects I mean citizens having a convo about the BIG 2a infringements is so far out there that its not funny.