Oh, my. "Meet the face of (Colorado's) pro-gun recall campaigns"

[ExCop-LawStudent]

23. Miller supports individual, not collective, rights

jimmy: Military weapons were indeed appropriate for the militia when activated circa 1791.

Which means that military weapons are still appropriate. The Constitution hasn't changed.

jimmy: So what scalia 'said' is pretty much crap

Except that it is now the law of the land.

jimmy: english decision, 1871: The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution.., refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.

Exactly, which means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear "arms" which would mean weapons that would be useful in a military sense.

jimmy: Certainly, 2ndA as a militia based right it makes sense, as does applying 'bear arms'; But if you try to apply this to scalia's 'individual rkba' aberration you are mixing things up, applying the proper 'bear arms' concept to an improper grouping - citizens unconnected to militia or military. From what I've seen I don't see a problem with this paragraph. It also seems to validate several state constitutions laws (then) which prohibited carrying concealed weapons.

Except it is not a militia based right. The founders used "the people" as a term of art. Everywhere that it is used, it has been interpreted as an individual right. &quot T)he 'normal rule of statutory construction that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning."'" Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) (internal citations omitted). It violates the rules of statutory construction to interpret the Second Amendment in the way that you desire.

jimmy: In the vernacular of the 1939 day this (& the passage you cited) was considered proof which negated the individual rkba interpretation.

That's nowhere near correct. Miller cited a number of other cases that support the individual right, and the right to self defense. See State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455 (1874) ("The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear . . . must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State.&quot ; People v. Brown, 235 N.W. 245 (Mich. 1931) ("The protection of the Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to "every person" to bear arms for the "defense of himself" as well as of the State.&quot ; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876) ("It is manifest from the language of the article, and from the expressions of these learned commentators, that the arms which it guarantees American citizens the right to keep and to bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc.&quot .

These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller, which was a sawed off shotgun, having no relation to arms used in the military service, was not protected. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.

Look, I understand that you don't like individual firearm rights. I don't like paying income taxes. Both are constitutional issues, and we have to deal with it.