Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
I agree and offer your latest reply as evidence:
JTO: "The individual right was to the people to belong to militia as a duty."
How does a right become a duty? Where is the term "duty" found in the 2A?
FYI: I did my own research; it doesn't and it isn't.
Why did you omit and or overlook Wm Rawle's title...
I didn't overlook it. As far as not reposting it where I quoted what you wrote, I figured you were able reread what you wrote and do your own research. 
Rawle felt the particular limitations on congress in the bill of rights helped provide security to individual rights, so, as encyc brittanica and wiki wrote, the bill of rights was: a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments.
Yes, as do I. 
Regarding Miller:
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.
In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.
And Judge Ragon was correct:
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
*-The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
*-The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
*-The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
*-The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read