excop: Miller cited a number of other cases that support the individual right, and the right to self defense. State v. Duke(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."
Invalid, all of those references by miller do not in any way support any 2ndA individual rkba, they are referencing available arms allowed by states in their STATE constitutions, for reflected support of some kind. The miller court allowed that state's could write their own 'rkbas'; Here in fuller context is 'state v duke'. Note that TEXAS, not the 2ndA, granted the rkba to it's citizens for personal self defense:
texas v geo duke, 1874: .. we pass to the consideration of the 13th Section of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the State {Texas}; which is as follows: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe."
There is no recital of the necessity of a well-regulated militia, as there is in the corresponding {2ndA} clause in the Conmstitution of the US . The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear (in the defense of himself or the State, subject to legislative regulation), 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.
excop: People v. Brown, (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."
;
The michigan court is referring to michigan's constitution, not the US constitution 2ndA. So again your point is invalid, in that miller was not referring to any individual right conferred by 2ndA.
Michigan's rkba: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state
excop: Fife v. State, Ark.(1876) "It is manifest from the language of the article {2ndA} , 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.".
No idea what you're trying to prove here, note the underlined in para above. This comports well with my point of view, not yours, imo. Please elucidate.
excop: These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller .. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.
Nowhere?????: Miller ruling, 1939: "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration anguarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
NOWHERE????: april love/pepersack/1995: .. the {2nd} amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller,(1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the 2nd Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/federal/3fed.htm
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read