From: [t--wa--s] at [eng.umd.edu] (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pro-2nd Ideas
Date: 17 Nov 1993 08:34:11 GMT
In article <2cbsp8$[p j q] at [darkstar.UCSC.EDU]> [r--il--y] at [cats.ucsc.edu] (Leo P Reilly) writes:
>Face it.  The reason there are no cases before the Supreme Court is
>because the fact is that gun control laws are.....constitutional.

Let's get technical for a second...the S.C. did rule that NFA 1934 was
constitutional.  Whether they would rule this way about the D.C.
gun ban, assault weapons ban, or a the machine gun tax stamp
case (like U.S. vs. Rock Island Armory 773 F. Supp. 117)
(which was won by Rock Island, so post-1986 machine guns are
legal in Illinois). 
---------
                UNITED STATES vs. MILLER et al.

        APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

No. 696.  Argued March 30, 1939 -- Decided May 15, 1939

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. 177.
  2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
P. 178.
  The Court can not 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
can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right
to keep and bear such a weapon.

26 F. Supp. 1002, reversed.
------------
Of course it might have been argued a little better on the pro-gun side
if SOMONE showed up to argue for the appellees ;)
-------------
UNITED STATES vs. MILLER et al. continued:

  In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a "shotgun having a barrel of less that 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 is use could contribute to the common defense.  Aymette
v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

  The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power --
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving
to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress."  With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.  It must be interpreted
and applied with that end in view.
  
  The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is
set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without
the consent of Congress.  The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored
standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country
and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily,
soldiers on occasion.

  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.

-----------------
-Thomas