35 years of gun sales, showing gun control's unintended consequences

[jimmy the one]

16. my unanimous decision trumps yours

Last edited Thu Mar 10, 2022, 08:42 AM - Edit history (1)

melmoose: Red flag laws are extremely dicey. See Caniglia v. Strom and before you comment about a right wing Supreme Court, this was a 9-0 decision.

The 1939 supreme court Miller decision was also a unanimous decision. Recall (if you ever read it) what that unanimous 8-0 decision said about the 2nd amendment:

1939 scotus Miller decision, 8-0 unanimous: Miller, (1939):

Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Above decision was bolstered by a Dept of Justice amicus brief to 1938/39 scotus re miller:
In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment (United States v. Adams), the contention was summarily rejected as follows
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. https://guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

It has been 8 decades since the supreme court ruled on the proper interpretation. The 1939 Miller decision which was unanimous 8-0 ruling it was a militia based right.
One would think that if the supreme court truly thought it was an individual right, as gun nuts spin miller, that at least one of the justices would've objected to the wording above, arguing that 'whoa, future generations will think we thought it was a militia based right', but not one objected.