Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Pro-gun bills moving in AZ | Main | At last I get recognition! »

The Miller behind US v. Miller

Posted by David Hardy · 21 May 2008 01:45 PM

Story here.

· US v. Miller

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Hartley | May 21, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply

It strikes me that what this article is trying to do is substitute Miller (certainly NOT a sympathetic character!) for Heller, who arguably IS.

What the Heller case is going to do is make Miller insignificant, and this is something the gun controllers don't like.

Dan Hamilton | May 22, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply

But what it does do is make plain that the case never should have be decided. When only one side is represented and that side is the government, whatever the outcome it can't be valid.

Imagine a case on any other subject. Would the Left accept or even concider it. No body would.

Just how many SC cases exist where the defendant had nobody there? I bet the list is small.

The SC wanted to validate the NFA. They used this case to do it because there would be no defendant to show that the NFA was unconstitutional. It was a blantant misuse of Judicial power.

SC Cases since then have shown that the NFA is even more unconstitutional today then it was then. No taxing a right, etc.

Leave a comment