While the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, the right as brought forth from the English common law into the colonies and into the States, has inherent limitations. These limitations are part of the right, they define the right, they do not infringe upon the right.

Exactly. Well put.

What does the U.S. justice system consult to determine which rights are given by God Hisself? Whose God is considered the Giver?

Does it matter whether the judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or athiest?

Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense?

I would say, in truth, that the US justice system does not fully incorporate the Common Law of England as far as the right to keep and bear arms and self-defense goes.

Rather, I'd say that a common law of America, which has come to differ substantially from old England, has developed over time, and that beyond that, American judges are all politicians, and live within a political and cultural climate that inflects their own beliefs, and sense of limitation, when it comes to the matter of guns and gun rights.

In England, the restriction of guns came easily, because an iron-clad top- down legalism rules the road there. In America, it's not so easy because the people are neither as obedient nor as malleable as the English.

And the judges come from the people and share those animal spirits. So while I would not dispute that American judges do indeed cite to the chains of laws going back, and conduct chains of reason that purport to simply be logical and inevitable extensions of the common law of jolly old England, in truth, their programming and prejudices make the result a sui generis common law of America, which is very distinctive on certain things, particularly matters of black-white race relations and guns.

And the Supreme Court can overrule itself and previous precedent and establish NEW precedent

Thereby making the concept of legal precedent a joke.

For over 200 years, those rights were secured by state constitutions.

The Hughes Amendment to H.R.4332 passed on a controversial voice vote. The entire H.R.4332, including the Hughes Amendment, passed by a recorded vote.

Your Congressional Record must read differently than the one that I just linked and quoted. Link and quote yours.

The Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The right to self- defense is part of the right to life.

The DoI is not, and never has been, part of U.S. law. It was a political statement made before there was a United States.

Now, if the right to self-defense includes the right to own an AK-47, then we would all have the right to own an AK-47. Correct?

It doesn't. We don't.

If there were no laws, you would be correct. There are laws, and they do not support your dreams.

I'm not saying Miller supercedes anything. I'm citing the doctrine of precedent -- stare decisis -- which Heller totally ignored.

Miller concluded the only arms protected by the second amendment were militia-type arms. That was ignored by Heller because it didn't fit their in-common-use-for-self-defense-in-the-home made-up interpretation.

You are full of crap, so there's that.

Heller did a thorough review of existing precedents. It found none inconsistent with its own ruling. It did not ignore precedent as you claim.

Heller demolishes your wrongheaded misreading of those precedents.

Notably, Heller finds that,

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

Your wrongheaded reading of Miller affects nothing.

Published on Jul 19, 2011

This is recently discovered footage from the early morning of April 10th, 1986. The committee chair, Charlie Rangel, allows the language known as The Hughes Amendment, into an amendment for the Firearm Owners Protection Act. This amendment banned the possession of automatic firearms by civilians except those already registered with BATFE. An unrecorded voice vote is used by Rangel to insert the amendment into the bill.

Explanation: Around 3:16 the clerk attempts to read the amendment which bans the manufacture of new machine guns while Hughes asks that the reading of the amendment suspended. A Republican objects to the fact that the amendment will not be read and forces the reading to go forward. This goes back and forth for a while. The time for consideration runs out, and Hughes asks for additional time for consideration around 5:46.

At 6:03 Rangel holds a voice vote (after the Republicans demand a recorded vote) in which he declares that enough ayes were heard, even though the nays are clearly more numerous. Rangel attempts to move forward, but enough Republican's speak up to demand a recorded vote on the previous voice vote and Rangel is unable to ignore them. When the recorded vote is held, it shows that the nays were indeed the majority and time is forced to expire on discussion of the Hughes amendment.

At 8:17 a voice vote is held in which Rangel declares it passed. At 8:41 Rangel ignores a call for recorded vote (while smirking) and moves forward without taking a recorded vote which would have shown that the amendment failed.

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

OK. And what weapons would those be? According to Miller.

Thereby making the concept of legal precedent a joke.

No. That IS the concept of legal precedent. All lower courts must obey the precedent set by the high court. The high court cannot permanently bind itself with an opinion any more than a Congress can permanently bind the country with a law. Later courts and later Congresses can always revisit and change the opinion, or the law. There is no permanent unalterable law. Absolutely everything can always be amended.

Explanation: Around 3:16 the clerk attempts to read the amendment which bans the manufacture of new machine guns while Hughes asks that the reading of the amendment suspended. A Republican objects to the fact that the amendment will not be read and forces the reading to go forward. This goes back and forth for a while. The time for consideration runs out, and Hughes asks for additional time for consideration around 5:46.

At 6:03 Rangel holds a voice vote (after the Republicans demand a recorded vote) in which he declares that enough ayes were heard, even though the nays are clearly more numerous. Rangel attempts to move forward, but enough Republican's speak up to demand a recorded vote on the previous voice vote and Rangel is unable to ignore them. When the recorded vote is held, it shows that the nays were indeed the majority and time is forced to expire on discussion of the Hughes amendment.

At 8:17 a voice vote is held in which Rangel declares it passed. At 8:41 Rangel ignores a call for recorded vote (while smirking) and moves forward without taking a recorded vote which would have shown that the amendment failed.

As I said, look at the Congressional Record. Approval of the Hughes Amendment and the main bill, as amended, was by Record Vote.

Listen to the very start. "The COMMITTEE is not in order."

"The question is on the motion for the COMMITTEE to rise. All in favor indicate by saying "Aye".

The Chairman ordered that a recorded vote be taken on the motion for the COMMITTEE to rise, by electronic device.

Recorded vote: Aye 124, Nay 297, NV 14 (vid)

The committee did not rise.

There was then a vote on adoption of the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer substitute. The Chairman announced that the Ayes had it.

Then there was a voice vote on adopting the Volker substitute, as amended.

The Chairman announced that the Noes had it.

A recorded vote was ordered by electronic device. Yea 286, Nay 136, NV 18.

Congressional Record:

04/10/1986 H.Amdt.770 Amendment Passed (Amended) in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 286 - 136 (Record Vote No: 74).
Action By: House of Representatives

At this point, the Volkmer substitute, as amended by the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer substitute, was agreed to.

There followed consideration of the Judiciary Committee amendment, as amended, to the main bill, and a voice vote followed. The Chair announced the Ayes had it. "According to the rule, the committee rises."

That was COMMITTEE proceedings.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speaker Tip O'Neill took over for House proceedings

House consideration of House Bill 4332.

Mr. Greaves (ph) "moves to recommit the bill 4332 to the committee on the judiciary."

Speaker O'Neill announced the Noes had it.

"The question comes on the passage of the bill."

The Speaker announced that the Ayes had it.

On motion, a recorded vote was ordered. Yea 292, Nay 130 NV 13. (on vid)

Congresional Record:

04/10/1986 Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).
Action By: House of Representatives

OK. And what weapons would those be? According to Miller.

Those typically lawfully possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Those weapons in common use at the time.

Heller at 624-25:

“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment.

Heller at 627-28:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Those typically lawfully possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Those weapons in common use at the time.

You cited Heller.

In your post #70, you said, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

I asked what "certain types of weapons" Miller stood for. Not Heller.

In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

Not true.

Weapons used for hunting and self-defense were rifles. Expensive, but accurate. Weapons used by the militia were smooth-bore muskets fired in volley. Inaccurate, but cheap.

The Militia Act of 1792 required militiamen to bring a musket with them, not their home rifle.

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

But Miller actually said, "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by members of a militia".

Heller made things up out of thin air.

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

Yep. And if that has changed it's up to the people to change the second amendment. Not Congress and certainly not the courts.

Since about half the states still have a State Militia (in addition to the National Guard), I doubt that will happen.

That was COMMITTEE proceedings.

That was COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proceedings.

I'll get back with text of the video. That may help.

The Militia Act of 1792 required militiamen to bring a musket with them, not their home rifle.

The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed, in its entirety, in 1795, and then it did not refer to muskets any more.

But Miller actually said, "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by members of a militia".

Heller made things up out of thin air.

Heller agrees that the Second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by members of a militia. That particular Miller assertion does not say what the 2nd does protect.

You cited Heller.

In your post #70, you said, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

I asked what "certain types of weapons" Miller stood for. Not Heller.

Heller is currently the definitive legal interpretation of what Miller says.

Miller involved one (1) unlawful to possess weapon involved in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes, and opined it enjoyed no 2A protection.

And if that has changed it's up to the people to change the second amendment.

A constitutional amendment is not needed to change the conception of what the militia does.

That was COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proceedings.

I know. The committee could not conduct House passage of the bill. The amended main bill, with the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute, was passed by the House with a recorded vote of the House.

The Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute was passed by the Committee of the Whole. Meeting as a committee may follow a different rule.

I would say, in truth, that the US justice system does not fully incorporate the Common Law of England as far as the right to keep and bear arms and self-defense goes.

The original states seperately each adopted so much of the English Common Law as was not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Framers copied the term right to keep and bear arms from the English Common Law and pasted it into the Constitution. There was no dispute about what the term meant as the Framers were not changing the then-existing law.

Common Law itself stands only in the absence of statute law, so what was initially a direct transplant has been subjected to modifications. The definition of the right could certainly be modified by court interpretation, but it appears that Scalia went back to English Common Law and Blackstone to state what the Federal right is.

554 U.S. 595

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone's Commentaries (by the law professor and former Anti-federalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the "right of self-preservation" as permitting a citizen to "repe[l] force by force" when "the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury." 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 145-146, n. 42 (1803)(hereinafter Tucker's Blackstone).

554 U.S. 626

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

- - - - - - - - - -

Rather, I'd say that a common law of America, which has come to differ substantially from old England, has developed over time....

I not sure here in that there is no general federal common law in the United States. This is because there are no Federal common law courts in the United States. The entirety of the Federal system was created by the Legislature via written law pursuant to the Constitution.

What common law does exist is created by State courts, but these are inconsistent, and the unique system in Louisiana is a hand-me-down from Napoleanic France.

It certainly seems that the enjoyment of the right varies from state to state, and even between localities within a state.

The amended main bill, with the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute, was passed by the House with a recorded vote of the House.

Or the Volkmer substitute to the Hughes Amendment. Either way, I agree the main bill was passed by a recorded vote of the House.

My point is, and has been, the Hughes amendment to the bill containing the machine gun ban was passed by voice vote only and was never recorded.

Hughes himself, on the video, wanted more time to explain why such a ban was necessary. He knew he didn't have the votes.

Heller is currently the definitive legal interpretation of what Miller says.

Yes. Third request. What did Miller say?

A constitutional amendment is not needed to change the conception of what the militia does.

A constitutional amendment IS needed to change the definition of "arms" from "weapons suitable for use by a well-regulated militia" (Miller) to "those in common use for self-defense in the home"(Heller).

At a minimum it would require a finding by Congress which could then be challenged in the courts.

As is, the USSC drew their own conclusions based on misinterpretations and gobbledygook.

Miller involved one (1) unlawful to possess weapon involved in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes, and opined it enjoyed no 2A protection.

Had Miller transported a machine gun across state lines, would that have been protected by the second amendment (per the Miller court)?

The Judiciary bill was never directly considered by the House. Instead, members voted 286-136 April 10 to adopt the Volkmer substitute. (Vote 68, p. 22-H)

286-136 was the recorded vote for the Volkmer substitute, NOT the Hughes Amendment.

The amended main bill, with the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute, was passed by the House with a recorded vote of the House.

Or the Volkmer substitute to the Hughes Amendment. Either way, I agree the main bill was passed by a recorded vote of the House.

No, not or. The Hughes Amendment amended the Volkmer substitute. The Volkmer substitute was passed, as amended, to substitute its text for that of the existing main bill.

Hughes himself, on the video, wanted more time to explain why such a ban was necessary. He knew he didn't have the votes.

It had the votes. It passed. That is how the Hughes text got into the Volkmer substitute text, and with the rest of the Volkmer substitute test, was reported to the House for consideration. If it did not have the votes, it's text would not be there.

Voice vote on Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute on video at 8m:26s

At 8m28s, "The Ayes have it."

At 8m:30s, Voice in background: Let it go, let it go. You've got it."

It's on the video. The AYES had it. It PASSED in the Committee of the Whole.

What failed was the first motion to rise, made before the vote on the Hughes Amendment.

Heller is currently the definitive legal interpretation of what Miller says.

Yes. Third request. What did Miller say?

Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn what Miller said.

Miller was superseded by Heller. It's a discussion of law, not history. Heller is the prevailing precedent.

Miller involved one (1) unlawful to possess weapon involved in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes, and opined it enjoyed no 2A protection.

Had Miller transported a machine gun across state lines, would that have been protected by the second amendment (per the Miller court)?

That was not before the Court in Miller and could not have been decided by Miller. The Court does not decide issues not presented.

Syllabus

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed.

Heller at 554 U.S. 623:

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

Miller decided upon only one weapon being transported by Miller in interstate commerce, "a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act."

I will not entertain your fantasies about Miller, yet again. Whatever you imagine it says or decided cannot supersede anything in Heller/McDonald.

The House passed HR 4332 April 10 by a 292-130 vote after substituting the text of Volkmer's bill for the provisions of the Judiciary Committee measure. (Vote 69, p. 22-H)

The Judiciary bill was never directly considered by the House. Instead, members voted 286-136 April 10 to adopt the Volkmer substitute. (Vote 68, p. 22-H)

286-136 was the recorded vote for the Volkmer substitute, NOT the Hughes Amendment.

The Hughes Amendment amended the Volkmer substitute text, not the existing main bill text, by a COMMITTEE vote.

Then the Committee voted to rise. A COMMITTEE motion to rise is a motion to rise up and report a bill to the House for passage or rejection.

MOTION TO RISE

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-115/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-115.pdf

HOUSE PRACTICE

A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House

Charles W. Johnson
John V. Sullivan
Thomas J. Wickham, Jr.

The Motion to Rise

With one exception in the Committee of the Whole, a motion to amend a bill has precedence over a motion to rise and report it to the House. 4 Hinds §§ 4752-4758. However, the motion to amend yields to the simple motion that the Committee rise. 4 Hinds § 4770. Under clause 2(d) of rule XXI, the motion to rise and report, if offered by the Majority Leader (or designee), takes precedence over an amendment after a general appropriation bill has been completely read for amendment. Manual § 1040. In the 109th Congress, the House adopted a resolution creating a point of order against a motion to rise and report an appropriation bill that exceeded an applicable allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Such a point of order has been carried forward in subsequent Congresses by separate order contained in the opening-day rules package. Manual § 1044b.

For precedence as between particular forms of amendment, see § 21, infra.

The Hughes text was incorporated into the Volkmer substitute text. The vote on the Volkmer substitute text approved the Volkmer substitute with the Hughes text incorporated, and was a vote of the HOUSE.

That was not before the Court in Miller and could not have been decided by Miller. The Court does not decide issues not presented.

I didn't ask the court. I asked you, coward.

Answer: They would have thrown out the case since machine guns are suitable for use by a well- regulated militia and protected by the second amendment. Which makes the Heller definition an invented joke.

Both the Volkmer substitute and the Hughes Amendment were added to HR 4332 and passed in a recorded vote.

Voice vote on Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute on video at 8m:26s

No. That was a voice vote on the Hughes Amendment. The vote on the Volkmer substitute was a recorded vote.

That was not before the Court in Miller and could not have been decided by Miller. The Court does not decide issues not presented.

I didn't ask the court. I asked you, coward.

You asked, I answered. You just don't like the answer. Here is what you asked:

Had Miller transported a machine gun across state lines, would that have been protected by the second amendment (per the Miller court)?

The Miller court held that transporting an unregistered shotgun in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes enjoyed no 2A protection. If you imagine that it decided some other issue, that is your personal problem. Heller stated, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessby by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

What Miller noted about machine guns was:

Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, 48 Stat. 1236-1240, 26 U.S.C. § 1132.

"That for the purposes of this Act --"

"(a) The term 'firearm' means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition [The Act of April 10, 1936, c. 169, 49 Stat. 1192 added the words], but does not include any rifle which is within the foregoing provisions solely by reason of the length of its barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if its barrel is sixteen inches or more in length."

"Sec. 3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm, such tax to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, hereinafter provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm."

"Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act: Provided, That, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof."

"(c) Every person so transferring a firearm shall set forth in each copy of such order the manufacturer's number or other mark identifying such firearm, and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner. The original thereof, with stamps affixed, shall be returned to the applicant."

"(d) No person shall transfer a firearm which has previously been transferred on or after the effective date of this Act, unless such person, in addition to complying with subsection (c), transfers therewith the stamp-affixed order provided for in this section for each such prior transfer, in compliance with such regulations as may be prescribed under this Act for proof of payment of all taxes on such firearms."

"Sec. 5. (a) Within sixty days after the effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this section with respect to any firearm acquired after the effective date of, and in conformity with the provisions of, this Act."

"Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of section 3 or 4 of this Act."

"Sec. 11. It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce."

"Sec. 12. The Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect."

"Sec. 14. Any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court."

"Sec. 16. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby."

"Sec. 18. This Act may be cited as the 'National Firearms Act.'"

Had the Miller firearm been a machine gun, it would have fallen within the 1934 Act and it would have been seized for the multiple violations of the Act.

Answer: They would have thrown out the case since machine guns are suitable for use by a well- regulated militia and protected by the second amendment. Which makes the Heller definition an invented joke.

The Heller court found no conflict with Miller in stating that "M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned...." No joke. I understand you prefer your imaginary bullshit better.

Heller supercedes Miller where there is any conflict of holdings.

In dicta, Miller opined that "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." A machine gun in not the type of weapon in common use at this time.

This embed is queued up to start at 8:12.

Rep. Charlie Rangel can be seen and heard stating

QUOTE

The question is heard. The question is on the adoption of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer Substitute.

CLOSE QUOTE

Technically it was the Hughes amendment to the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the commit­tee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The Hughes Amendment amended the Volkmer Substitute. Your imaginary bullshit does not change the video or the Congressional Record.

The Hughes Amendment text was added to the Volkmer Substitute text before the amended Volkmer Substitute text was approved and replaced the text in the main bill.

The Hughes amendment to an amendment to an amendment to the Volkmer amendment in the nature of a substitute was approved in committee to become part of the Volkmer Substitute.

The Volkmer Substitute, as amended, including the text of the Hughes amendment to the amendment to the amendment was voted on in committee to replace the Hughes-Rodino Bill, the main bill. Then the Bill, now with the text of the Volkmer Substitute (as amended) was approved by the House and signed into law.

Voice vote on Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute on video at 8m:26s

No. That was a voice vote on the Hughes Amendment. The vote on the Volkmer substitute was a recorded vote.

At 8m:26s comes the vote on the Volkmer Substitute as amended. It was just amended by the Hughes Amendment, and included the text of the Hughes Amendment.

The House only took one vote, and that was on the Volker Substitute as amended. The other votes were committee votes. When sitting as a committee of the whole, only 100 members need be present. The committee as a whole cannot vote approval of any legislation. They vote that a Bill is, or is not, reported to the House.

Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control

By Osha Gray Davidson

At 75:

But the smile on Volkmer’s face disappeared as Rangel, instead of recognizing McCollum, gave the nod to William Hughes.

"Mr. Chairman," called out Hughes, "I offer an amendment to the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute."

At 76:

Hughes’s amendment would ban machine guns. These weapons, which fire a stream of bullets as long as the trigger is kept depressed, had been strictly regulated since 1934, but Hughes’s bill would fully outlaw the manufacture and sale of these automatic firearms— although those who already owned machine guns would be allowed to keep them.

At 77:

Hughes was moving that the committee end its session so that he could then ask the Rules Committee to allow more time for debate. But Hughes’s attempt failed, His motion was soundly defeated, 124 to 298.

At precisely 11:30, Rangel announced that time had run out for debating Hughes’s amendment—which, of course, had not been de­bated at all. Hughes rose to request unanimous consent that debate time be extended another five minutes. Sensenbrenner once again objected and this time Hughes sat down, defeated. A vote on his amendment to ban machine guns was called. What happened next would be a point of contention—and contempt—for years to come.

Charles Rangel, still sitting as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, called for a voice vote on Hughes’s amendment. All those in favor of the amendment called out “Aye"; those opposed yelled "No”

Rangel declared that Hughes’s ban on machine guns had passed.

At 78:

Volkmer fumed, but there was nothing he could do.

Immediately, Rangel turned to the larger question of McClure-Volkmer. The question before the House was, Should the Hughes-Rodino bill be replaced by Volkmer’s bill? A voice vote was called. The ayes and nays were shouted out and Rangel announced that the noes had it. The McClure-Volkmer bill had been defeated.

This time Volkmer jumped to his feet and, in a voice that could not be ignored, demanded a recorded vote. He needn’t have worried. Rangel had no intention of ignoring him and risking the undying enmity of a majority of the House for using a trick to defeat the legislation as a whole. The recorded vote was taken.

Harold Volkmer inserted his plastic identification card into an elec­tronic console, about the size of a cigar box, which was mounted to the chair back in front of him. He waited for the computer, located across Independence Avenue in the Rayburn House Office Building, to send a "ready" signal: a blue light illuminated on the console. When the light came on, Volkmer didn’t hesitate. He jabbed the yea button, which lit up green, to signal that his vote was locked in. Volkmer looked up at one of the four electronic tally boards mounted above and behind the Speaker’s rostrum. A green yea light blinked on next to his name.

As the minutes went by, Volkmer watched with growing satisfac­tion as more and more green lights flashed on. He figured that the green lights outnumbered the red nay ones by at least two to one.

Finally, the vote was announced. The U.S. House of Representa­tives had voted to toss out the Hughes-Rodino bill and replace it with the McClure-Volkmer bill. The vote was 292 in favor of the move, 130 against it. Harold Volkmer and the National Rifle Association had, at long last, won their battle.

The Miller court held that transporting an unregistered shotgun in interstate commerce for non-militia purposes enjoyed no 2A protection.

Where did you get "for non-militia purposes"? You're just making shit up.

The court didn't even get that far. They couldn't say it was a weapon suitable for use by a militia. They remanded back to the lower court to get that resolved before they would even hear the case.

Heller stated, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessby by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

Sure. That's the way THEY read it. That's why they're wrong.

Miller said no such thing. It said the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not suitable for use by a militia.

HAD THE MILLER COURT SAID that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessby by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. they would have ruled against Mr. Miller right there and then."

Had the Miller firearm been a machine gun, it would have fallen within the 1934 Act and it would have been seized for the multiple violations of the Act.

Correct. It violated the Act.

But the issue before the USSC was did the Act violate the second amendment, and I say the Miller court would have ruled -- based on their statements in the actual case -- that a machine gun IS protected by the second amendment since a machine gun is suitable for use by a well-regulated militia.

The Heller court found no conflict with Miller in stating that "M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned...."

I know what Heller said. And I say they're wrong.

If the federal government can ban "M-16 rifles and the like", states will not have the ability form a citizen's militia -- the protection of which the second amendment guaranteed and the whole reason for the second amendment.

A machine gun in not the type of weapon in common use at this time.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 saw to that, didn't it?

Offer any gun owner the choice between a single-shot AR-15 and a full-auto AR-15 and they'll take the full-auto every time. So don't give me your "not in common use" bullshit.

that a machine gun IS protected by the second amendment since a machine gun is suitable for use by a well-regulated militia.

Excellent point misterwhite.

The question is heard. The question is on the adoption of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer Substitute.

I see. And what was the recorded vote of that adoption?

Excellent point misterwhite.

Thank you.

Had Mr. Miller been transporting a machine gun instead of a sawed-off shotgun, the U.S. Supreme Court would have ruled the recently passed National Firearms Act of 1934 unconstitutional.

Now, since the second amendment only applied to the federal government, states were free to regulate (not ban) machine guns according to their state constitution. They could rule, for example, that machine guns had to be registered and stored at a state armory or private gun range. Or not.

The point being -- there were other ways of addressing the problem rather than a federal ban.

Where did you get "for non-militia purposes"? You're just making shit up.

As you have apparently never bothered to read Miller, all further stupid comments about it will be ignored.

[Miller Syllabus] "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

[Miller Opinion of the Court at 178] "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. "

[Lewis v. United States, 445 US 55, 65-6 (1980)]

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v.Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F. 2d 1288,1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F. 2d 548 (CA41974); Cody v. United States, 460 F. 2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U. S.1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that § 1202 (a) (1),§ 922 (g), and § 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

that a machine gun IS protected by the second amendment since a machine gun is suitable for use by a well-regulated militia.

Excellent point misterwhite.

The logic is ass backwards.

That a weapon must bear some relationship to a well-regulated militia in order to enjoy 2A protection, does not infer that ALL weapons that do have some relationship to a well-regulated militia enjoy 2A protection.

For example, an AK-47 or an RPG launcher.