Hit piece on Heller by John Paul Stevens

[DispositionMatrix]

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.

The text of the Second Amendment unambiguously explains its purpose: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” When it was adopted, the country was concerned that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states.

Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, “In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ 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.”

 

[Bob P]

In ‘03 Stevens was called ‘the most liberal member of the court’ so his writing an opinion piece like this for Atlantic should be no surprise

 

[timbo]

The fallacy of US vs Miller:

♦ the Supreme Court:

◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)


♦ a brief for Miller and Layton might have argued that:


◊ short-barreled and sawed-off shotguns were military weapons, having been used by both sides in the Civil War
◊ shotguns were widely used by U.S. forces in World War I
◊ the Supreme Court in 1856 implicitly reaffirmed the law-abiding person’s civil right to be armed, when it declared that the government, in the form of a sheriff, had no duty to protect the average person

More here:

The U.S. v Miller, revisited

 

[timbo]

In ‘03 Stevens was called ‘the most liberal member of the court’ so his writing an opinion piece like this for Atlantic should be no surprise

...and he was a republican (whatever that means)

 

[Bob P]

...and he was a republican (whatever that means)

Yah IIRC Ford appointed him so he’s pre-Gingrich era. The Republicans of that period weren’t the same as today and in the immediate post/Nixon era the ‘soft’ Repubs were in control of the party.

 

[fishgutzy]

He was on the Supreme Court when, under Carter, SCOTUS ruled that all acts of violence committed by union members was "legitimate collective bargaining." Since then unions have gotten far bolder and more violent.
With more widespread gun ownership, it is now substantially harder for unions to get away with violent tactics.
Stevens also voted to gut private property right in Kelo. "Public Use" was twisted into "any perceived public benefit." He voted to allow wealth connected developers to take private property for pennies on the dollar for entirely private gain.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

"Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, “In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ 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."

Cherry picking quotes from the ruling and twisting them to fit a narrative is ludicrous.

US vs Miller was a legal farce, as only the Government side was argued.

All it decided was that the National Firearms Act - under which machine guns, shotguns with barrels under 18" in length, short-barreled rifles, and firearms silencers had to be registered and a $200/item tax paid was constitutional, and that those firearms were not protected by the Second Amendment because they were not useful for military service.

Imagine that, MACHINE GUNS ARE NOT USEFUL FOR MILITARY SERVICE???

 

[amm5061]

This piece of shit is at it again? When's he gonna stroke out so they stop republishing the same bullshit time after time?

 

[drgrant]

Stevens can go f*** himself.

-Mike

 

[fishgutzy]

Stevens can go f*** himself.

-Mike

This is the perfect t-shirt response.

 

[Glockster30]

"Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, “In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ 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."

Cherry picking quotes from the ruling and twisting them to fit a narrative is ludicrous.

US vs Miller was a legal farce, as only the Government side was argued.

All it decided was that the National Firearms Act - under which machine guns, shotguns with barrels under 18" in length, short-barreled rifles, and firearms silencers had to be registered and a $200/item tax paid was constitutional, and that those firearms were not protected by the Second Amendment because they were not useful for military service.

Imagine that, MACHINE GUNS ARE NOT USEFUL FOR MILITARY SERVICE???

“In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ 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."

This is primarily why both sides claimed victory after the Miller decision. If the shotgun did not meet militia requirements, then all other guns that did meet the requirements contributed to the function of a well-regulated militia.

Then we have to look at what was considered the militia back then:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty." George Mason[27]

Case closed!

 

[wiryone1]

"When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia.

Utterly contemptible contortion of what was meant by the 2A. THIS is how a tyrant thinks. And now we have decades of “ precedent” built on this s*** reasoning.

 

[fishgutzy]

“In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ 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."

This is primarily why both sides claimed victory after the Miller decision. If the shotgun did not meet militia requirements, then all other guns that did meet the requirements contributed to the function of a well-regulated militia.

Then we have to look at what was considered the militia back then:



Case closed!

Alas, the present day elected democrats claim that the militia is the National Guard. But that is BS. The NG is controlled by the federal government. Such a declaration would then mean that only the federal government has "gun rights." And that is counter to everything the Constitution says and stands for.
Next time the democrats control everything they sneak in an amendment codifying their definition of Militia.

 

[Rockrivr1]

One at a time. All prayers should be for Ginsburg to stroke out first. Then we can concentrate on Stevens.

 

[SKumar]

One at a time. All prayers should be for Ginsburg to stroke out first. Then we can concentrate on Stevens.

So morbid, but true.

 

[KBCraig]

More here:

The U.S. v Miller, revisited

Often overlooked is the fact that the U.S. District Court judge, Heartsill Ragon, undertook a conspiracy to get his own ruling overturned. He was not only in favor of the NFA that he ruled unconstitutional, but also favored a total ban on private handgun ownership.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

 

[timbo]

Often overlooked is the fact that the U.S. District Court judge, Heartsill Ragon, undertook a conspiracy to get his own ruling overturned. He was not only in favor of the NFA that he ruled unconstitutional, but also favored a total ban on private handgun ownership.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Thanks Kevin...I'll definitely want to read through that.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Often overlooked is the fact that the U.S. District Court judge, Heartsill Ragon, undertook a conspiracy to get his own ruling overturned. He was not only in favor of the NFA that he ruled unconstitutional, but also favored a total ban on private handgun ownership.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

This paper was quoted by Justice Scalia in Heller.
It should be required reading in every Law School, maybe every Elementary School.

 

[Enzo]

Sure Stevens, waited until Nino was gone so he couldn’t dope slap you...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The distortions of the 2A are reading against the clear intent. Everyone knows that when the strip club manager "asks" someone to leave, it is not a request, but an order or demand, despite the fact that the term "ask'" has no compellatory import when using the Webster's definition.

 

[556USER]

As they like to say in the legal profession, Stevens being retired from the high court no longer has any standing with regard to this issue. Just ramblings of an old man. LOL

 

[wahsben]

If you want to guard against government tyranny as the founders did, you don't put the government in charge of the peoples right to keep and bear arms because that's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. That's why the founders put "shall not be infringed" Unfortunately the courts ignore that part and our ancestors and us have kept letting them get away with it.

 

[KBCraig]

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

That makes me wonder if he ever read Miller, or the NFA.

 

[LLF]

Often overlooked is the fact that the U.S. District Court judge, Heartsill Ragon, undertook a conspiracy to get his own ruling overturned. He was not only in favor of the NFA that he ruled unconstitutional, but also favored a total ban on private handgun ownership.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

Very interesting well-written article. Reads like a script for an episode of "The Untouchables". Thanks for posting this.

 

[KBCraig]

Very interesting well-written article. Reads like a script for an episode of "The Untouchables". Thanks for posting this.

Being from the Western District of Arkansas originally, I've always had an interest in this case.

Aside from Ragon being an FDR favorite, the defense attorney that Ragon appointed was in turn appointed as an Arkansas state senator to fill a vacancy. His cooperation in the case was purely a coincidence, of course.

 

[Dennis in MA]

He's a tool. There was a nice article on him in the WSJ last weekend. And talked briefly about this. And his desire to see the Constitution changed because HE thinks he's smarter than the Founding Fathers. Definite tool.