4 ms·
I offer no comment the GP, but an example springs to mind for where where a "liberal" ruling was based on a factual error - US v Miller (1939) The majority opi
by LyndsySimon 9y ago
I offer no comment the GP, but an example springs to mind for where where a "liberal" ruling was based on a factual error - US v Miller (1939)
The majority opinion stated:
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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.
In fact, "trench shotguns" were issued in WW1 and at the time of the ruling, which standard barrel lengths of ~20" - and were often shortened further in the field. Further, shotguns with barrels of <18" were standard issue elsewhere in the world and were used by US cavalry throughout the Civil War and into the Indian Wars in the latter part of the 19th Century.
- maxxxxx 9y agoThey really need to rewrite the second amendment in a more precise fashion. How about bazookas or soon laser weapons? Are they ok? I am not trying to be funny. What's an arm?
- LyndsySimon 9y agoAt the time of the ratification, "arms" basically meant a weapon that could be carried by a soldier. The next larger class of weapons would be "ordnance", to include things like cannon and explosives. It's also worth noting that the Constitution implicitly recognizes the civilian ownership of ordnance as well, through Article 1 Section 8: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" granting letters of marque wouldn't make sense if individuals did not possess suitably armed ships.
- maxxxxx 9y agoA Stinger ground to air missile can easily be carried by a soldier so I assume that's OK. I have also spent considerable time carrying around an anti-tank missile. Heavy but very doable.
- tlb 9y agoThe opinion states that there was an absence of evidence (ie, evidence presented in court, not evidence that might exist somewhere in the world.) It's the job of the litigants to produce the evidence, not the justices.
- LyndsySimon 9y agoThere were no litigants in Miller - the defendants didn't respond to notification and their attorney didn't attend the proceedings in DC. In fact, it's quite possible that they were dead.