« WV firearm safety training bill | Main | Heller/Parker and standard of review »
Story on Jack Miller
Here it is, with the first photo I've seen of the appellee in US v. Miller. I should mention another good historical piece on him and the case, arguing that the district judge, while ruling in his favor, was setting him up to lose in the Supreme Court.
If you want to read my other posts on US v. Miller, just go to the archives, in the left margin, and there's a category for the case.
While we're at it, here's a transcription of the records in US v. Miller. It includes the government's brief, which (while not well organized) in places makes the same argument that DC makes in Heller:
"the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in both the Federal and State Constitutions, had its origin in the attachment of the people to the utilization as a protective force of a well-regulated militia..."
"the right secured by that Amendment to the people to keep and bear arms is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state."
Hat tip to reader Jarard Killip.
Comments
Ah. First time I've seen the clip (it aired in Tulsa, not here in OKC). Clearly I need to learn to look up at the camera a little more, but that's not the reporter's fault.
I did make some remarks about Frye's article, and the fascinating prospect that Judge Ragon (a booster of federal gun control during his days as a Congressman) actually thought the NFA was constitutional but head-faked the case to generate a pro-control Supreme Court precedent. But I believe the camera was turned off by then.
The reporter was good; knew his stuff.
Posted by: Mike O'Shea at February 1, 2008 11:55 AM
Michael:
Thanks for weighing in here. Truthfully, the "looking up at the camera" issue gave you an air of scholarship and intellect, especially when you glanced over the top of your glasses. You looked good to me and did well.
Now, I am confused by some inconsistencies. The printed article is pretty much a ver batim transcript of the video....EXCEPT for the quotes attributed to you. For example (and significantly), in the text they quote you as saying "...the national firearms act of 1934, was unconstitutional because it violated the second amendment rights to keep and bear arms." That is a serious statement, and one I happen to agree with...but the point is that you did NOT say that in the video.
Moreover, it appears that the printed version edits out some of Morgan's "um's" and uh's", etc....edits out some of the less articulate portions of his verbal statements. But not only is the text attributed to you not ver batim what you said in the video, they left in the text quotes certain words...the less articulate or fluent ones, such as: "You know, that's, it could be argued that that was, you know, legal malpractice."
So, Michael, what explains the inconsistencies between the video and the text, and the editing of Morgan, but not you, to enhance the articulation or the fluidity of speech?
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at February 1, 2008 01:34 PM
Ragon actually had to do a double-head fake.
He first sustained the demurrer in June 1938, but it seems that the DoJ missed the deadline to appeal.
So they that had to re-indict Miller & Layton; Gutensohn had to refile his demurrer; and Ragon had to sustain it again in September (?). This time the DoJ was ready, and they appealed.
All legal, but with Gutensohn not even briefing his case on top of it, it seems more manipulative than, say, firing eight US Attorneys.
Posted by: JCR at February 1, 2008 02:35 PM
Thanks for linking to this. I had read some about Miller in the past, but never this much. Interestingly, Claremore is also the site of the great J. M. Davis Gun Museum. You can visit the museum, spit on Miller's grave, visit the Will Rogers Memorial, and eat some good Bar-B-Q all in one small Oklahoma town.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at February 1, 2008 03:22 PM