Talk:United States v. Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Italics

Why is advocates "italicised" (pardon my spelling, if I mispelled that) where it explains how each side took the case to support their side? I have little experience editing encyclopedias, but is there a reason behind that?

[edit] Background on this case

As I have indicated in another talk page, this matter came to the Supreme Court after a timely posed demurrer by one or both defendants at trial. Therefore, a likely explanation regarding the lack of evidence might be that no evidence to the aforementioned effect had even been presented at the trial -- the defendants' demurrer may have been sustained by the trial court before anybody could get around to presenting evidence. (For non-lawyers, what this basically means is that if the trial court threw out the case before the defendants had a chance to present "evidence" there obviously would have been no such "evidence" in the record on appeal for the Supreme Court to even talk about. In other words, this may have been a case where the defendants were "too successful," or their initial success at the trial court essentially may have backfired once the case was appealed.)

The Supreme Court hears and decides questions of law but does not normally decide questions of fact (i.e., does not normally hear "evidence"). Appeals courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court do look at "evidence" in certain technical ways, but not in all the same ways that a trial court looks at evidence. Generally, the Supreme Court and other appeals courts look only at evidence presented at the trial court proceeding.

If the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the firearm in the case was "ordinary military equipment" for purposes of the statute to be a question of fact, then the Court could easily have taken the lack of "facts" in the trial court's record as a lack of "evidence." By contast, if an appeals court such as the Supreme Court considers a particular question decided by a trial court to be a question of law, the court will have no problem re-examining that question.

The Court also noted that it could take no judicial notice that the weapon was part of ordinary military equipment. This seems to support the argument that the Court did indeed treat the question as a question of fact -- one requiring "evidence" to be presented at the trial court -- and apparently none was presented, because the defendants were successful in having the case thrown out first.

If you don't present "evidence" at trial, you are basically out of luck. Under our legal system, the Supreme Court and other appeals courts generally do not consider or look at "evidence" unless that evidence was at least presented at the trial court level. So, even if the defendants or their lawyers HAD shown up at the Supreme Court, any "evidence" they didn't try to put into the trial court record would generally not be regarded by the Supreme Court anyway. Yours, Famspear 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] True Lies

I removed the paragraph about the "frequent claim" that the government lied in stating that the shotgun in question was never used in connection with a militia. It is unsourced, and in any event a factually true statement made as part of a legal argument does not become a lie simply because the statement is (arguably) irrelevant. Bob92 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What people are saying is that the judge didn't know half-barelled shotguns was military arms. If he had knew it was used, in coherency with the rest of military arms that would have been ruled lawful to posses as well. This trial is a little bit hard for a layman to understand as the definition of a militia is anyone over 18 years of age. Hence anyone over 18 can posses military arms for their protection. Lord Metroid 13:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Metroid, the Supreme Court protected ownership of military weapons by those enrolled in militias. It wouldn't matter if the sawed-off shotgun really were a military weapon or if the court had known it, because there was no militia involved. The definition of militia is not "anyone over 18 years of age," as you say. The Constitution and the court define it very clearly as, among other things, "well-regulated" and organized, armed, and disciplined by Congress. The court wrote that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline'" -- that doesn't mean that everyone over 18 was a militiaman automatically because he turned 18, it meant that everyone over 18 was obligated to enroll in the militia and be subject to its discipline. Short answer: whatever the law is, the court in this case named two requirements, not one, for the enjoyment of the Second Amendment's protection: (1) a military-style weapon and (2) enrollment in a militia. Knowing the trivia of the military's use of sawed-off shotguns would not have changed the court's decision. --Yawnz1 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawnz, you are in need of a serious study of the origins and implementation of the Second Ammendment, the opinion of the framers, most notably the Federalist papers and subsequent interpretations. It would also be wise to study the underlying issue of Republicanism vs Liberalism at hand during the Revolutionary/Constitional era. I recommend Gordon Wood, obviously. Yes, citizens were expected to roll in the common defense. As it was not just a right to bear arms for your defense(liberalism), it was a duty to own firearms, for the defense of the nation, internal and foreign, (republican), be well trained, get togethor in your community for drills, teach your children so they could enter the militia upon adulthood, etc. This is reflected in the view of all the rights. It's not just a right to freedom of the press, it's a duty to be well informed and have access to all the information.
That being said, none of the framers were of the opinion that militia would be organized by Congress. Nor is there any credible academics that put forth such a view. Anybody that does put such a view instantly loses their credibility. It is akin to finding a credible source that the world is flat. The view of standing armies is well documented, as well as the view of the militia.
This is the logic which i find baffling: The court wrote that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable. Seems to me that the court meant the militia was all males physically capable. Pretty straight forward. Maybe the age requirement can be intrepretted under physically capable. Certienly you can look at the U.S. code and its legal origins that states exactly what the court said, "All Able Bodies Males". Chudogg (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whether only military type arms are protected

An anonymous editor has inserted "The court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected." The only explanation was "rv vandalism".

I had removed the sentence, because the court did not actually say that. The article does quote what the court actually said. The sentence is inaccurate and misleading, and it just promotes someone's POV about how the court's opinion should be interpreted. Interpretation belongs in the following section, not the section on what the court actually said. Roger 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Miller has a case that supports Gun regulation

First line should be edited that Miller is a case that affirmed the right of the federal government to regulate firearm ownership, through NFA 1934. Nobody is argueing against that. Rather than the weak notion that both sides say its supports their side. Gun Rights supporters would hardly claim this case as a victory even if it did uphold the individual rights view, per se. And anti-gunners have to make some giants leaps in logic to make. Thus that sentence should be replaced and leave that dichotomy in the main page. Chudogg (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you say that it affirmed the power of the feds to tax the interstate transfer of firearms that have no military use. I think that the lead paragraph is just fine. Roger (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Precedent

The text re: Printz v. U.S. was partially incorrect; "the Court" did not state that, rather, Justice Thomas did in a concurring opinion. For those unfamiliar with legal terminology, a concurring opinion is one written by a justice who agrees with what the majority has held but would like to comment independently on the topic. This is a crucial distinction; had "the Court" written that line, its effect would be substantial, essentially knocking the collective right position in the Second Amendment debate out of the ball park at the Appellate level, demolishing the key cornerstone of the bulk of Circuit Courts' Second Amendment precedent, and more than likely would have been seen as an indication by the Court that it was willing to hear a Second Amendment challenge. That it was written instead by Thomas in a concurrence means that it has virtually no value, except to the extent it signifies his individual stance on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.136.206 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)