Two SCOTUS decisions the antis don't want us to know about . . .

[Frogman]

"TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

Carl F. Worden

January 15, 2013

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

Carl F. Worden"


Jim

[coyote101]

The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

Carl F. Worden"

Before you trust the opinion of Mr. Worden, I suggest that you read the decision for yourself. It does not say what he purports it to say. It does say that someone who was being unlawfully arrested "had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest..." But, it goes on to say, "He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first [177 U.S. 529, 538]   case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

The plaintiff in error was undoubtedly prejudiced by this error in the charge, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.

[coyote101]

The court did not rule on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Bad Elk. They merely ordered that he be granted a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed on the authority of the officers to arrest him and on his right to resist an unlawful arrest.

They did opine that, where killing an officer making a lawful arrest might be murder, killing an officer making an unlawful arrest might be nothing more than manslaughter, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

Remember also that this case is from 1900 and many laws have changed. In Kentucky for instance, it is against the law to physically resist, even an unlawful arrest, as long as no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest is being used.

I would not bet my life or freedom on Mr. Worden's interpretation of a century old case.

Pat

[Frogman]

Yeah, I wondered about that?  Thanks for the clarification!

Jim

[CCP]

Remember also that this case is from 1900 and many laws have changed.

Also remember no matter the laws made or if 99% of the people vote to ban guns it doesn't matter because our framers were very clear .  If our government comes to take our guns, they are violating one of your constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

If they come for your guns then it is your constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty.

They can pass any gun law they like you are backed by the Constitution..

The thing is they know you want just hand them over so they will come by force in tactical gear and murder you in your home for some large magazine capacity ban or other such garbage law.

I just hope that the LEO on the street studies up on there Constitution so they don't do as there Nazi counter parts and just follow orders..

[coyote101]

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

Carl F. Worden"

Mr. Worden also wildly overstates the scope of the Miller decision. First, and most obviously, it could not possibly clearly include AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as they did not exist in 1939 when the case was decided. Secondly, the court did not say what specific type of weapon was protected. What they ruled was that a sawed off shotgun was not protected. 

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

There are encouraging parts of the decision, such as the followiing, which will almost certainly be important in the cases which are sure to come in the not to distant future, but it is foolish to read anything into a Supreme Court decision that is not very clearly stated:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

That passage could be interpreted to mean what Mr. Worden claims it means; I wish it did. But it could also be interpreted to mean something completly different. And until the court rules on the meaning, we can only guess, or wish.

Pat

[coyote101]

Richard,

I'm not saying you wouldn't be justified in taking whatever action you deem necessary to protect your rights and liberty. What I'm saying is you won't find that legal justification in the Miller or Bad Elk decisions, as Mr. Worden claims.

Pat

[KySongDog]

I don't think anyone should advocate shooting a cop.   It's bad karma. 

[Frogman]

I don't think anyone should advocate shooting a cop.   It's bad karma.

+1

Jim