Replacing white people to kill gun rights

[Surf Fishing Guru]

82. Facepalm . . .

jimmy the one wrote:

Surf fishing Guru wrote:You have misconstructed Miller's simple statement about the object of the 2nd Amendment and misapplied it to constrain the right to keep and bear arms (which is a separate thing, existing without reference to or any dependence upon the 2nd Amendment).

I have not misinterpreted this: -- With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

As opposed to any scalia style individual interpretation, accd'g to 1939 scotus, duh.

LOL, yes, you have, egregiously . . .

Here's why . .. In a post Slaughterhouse Cases legal climate (a 1873 SCOTUS decision that gutted the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment) we citizens must challenge enacted law instead of enjoying a general liberty principle that binds Congress. This has reduced us to claiming specific injuries from specific government actions under "due process" -- so we are stuck with citing the 2nd Amendment as the guarantee of gun rights.

With that comes the baggage of the intent of the Amendment; the "why" framers and the states and the people demanded that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms be formally and expressly excluded from the powers granted to the federal government.

So, Courts have examined the 'object' of the Amendment. That object was to ensure the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and he federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens to call up at a moments notice to aid the civil authority in a time of need.

This is where we get the primary protection sphere of the Amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess and use the types of arms that are useful to a citizen militia and that can be effectively used by the citizens in the types of engagements that a general, citizen militia are expected to face if called -- the, "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces"

US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that should be used to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and
that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be repelled.

In Heller, SCOTUS only used one of those criteria to strike down the DC statutes; they held that handguns are in common use at the time by the general citizenry.

"We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read
in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service
[able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional
militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time”
for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era,
[small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of
person and home were one and the same.” -- DC v Heller

SCOTUS has always held that the right does not depend on the 2nd Amendment but in examining why the 2nd is there, the protection sphere is informed by that intent / object. So, Heller certainly followed Miller and Heller does employ a militia focused protection criteria. You OTOH, invent a castle in the sky where SCOTUS is ignored and the clear statement of the object of the Amendment is applied to the right (which SCOTUS has said in no manner depends on the 2nd for its existence) and becomes an illegitimate and anti-constitutional straight jacket for the exercise and protection of the right to arms.

Why can't you understand the simple principle that tells us that since the right does not flow from the Amendment the Amendment can't be employed to restrict / qualify / condition / constrain the right?