home
Miller, Emerson, Concealed Carry, etc. (none / 0) (#66)
by John B Brown on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:00:58 PM EST
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/guns/emerson.htm is one link for those in need of some historical and philosophical parsing. It is also more recent than the uncontested, irrelevant Miller non-decision.
The essence of Miller is described thusly:
"Jack Miller was charged with moving a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce in violation of the
National Firearms Act of 1934. Among other things, Miller had not registered the firearm, as required by the Act. The court below dismissed the charge, accepting Miller's argument that the Act violated the Second Amendment." He didn't show up, even through counsel, at the Supreme Court; apparently he got back his shotgun so he didn't care anymore.
So, no "machine guns" involved, and the current crop of distortions to McReynolds absurdity as a defence for disarming citizens is due for some drastic change.
The right to carry a concealed arm is explicit in the constitution, as amended, needing only some rational expression in law for uniform application of that right. National expression will NOT remove some imagined "right" of states to infringe. We are, first of all, people under the constitution and carry all the rights and protections that affords.
For those concerned about armed "neighbors", arm yourselves. We live in a one time only world. You get one pass only. All it takes to end yours is one uncontrolled berserker and one millisecond. It's your personal duty to control your particular berserker. The argument that CCL holders exert a "halo" is a bogus point. Personal existence, and it's fragility, is the point the founders make.
Get serious, folks; you only have one life. If you must give it to a criminal make sure it is while you act for you or your family's protection.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft