'Miller in 1939, the closest that the Supreme Court has come to interpreting the substance of the Amendment.'
1939??? There are gangs that will target one home with a driveby shooting. Isn't it time to address this issue? How can a person defend their family from a street gang without a fully automatic weapon? What was up with this - 'On appeal by the Government, neither defendant appeared or filed a brief.'??? Were the defendants criminals? Did the Government threaten the defendants? I hope some one/group will push this issue back to the Supreme Court. Fully Automatic Firearms should be allowed to protect your families against gangs/fanatical organizations. ...This memorandum proceeds in four parts. Part I addresses the current unsettled state of the law in this area... ...I. THE UNSETTLED LEGAL LANDSCAPE ...The Supreme Court’s most important decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment, United States v. Miller, grew out of the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934. That Act was the first federal regulation of private firearms. It taxed (and thereby registered) transfers of sawed-off shotguns or rifles capable of being concealed, machine guns, and silencers. It also taxed dealers in such weapons and required anyone who possessed such a weapon acquired before 1934 to register it with federal tax authorities. A Second Amendment challenge to this Act produced Miller in 1939, the closest that the Supreme Court has come to interpreting the substance of the Amendment. Miller and a codefendant were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and the district court sustained their Second Amendment challenge to the indictment. ***>>>On appeal by the Government, neither defendant appeared or filed a brief. The Court, in reversing and remanding, held that the sawed- off shotgun was not among the “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment absent “evidence tending to show that” its use or possession “at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Citing an 1840 decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Aymette v. State, the Court concluded that it was not “within judicial notice” that a sawed-off shotgun was a weapon that was “any part of the ordinary military equipment” or whose use “could contribute to the common defence.” Absent evidence, therefore, the Court could not “say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”<<<*** www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
