LkWd_Don
Regular Member
eye95 said:Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.
As my contention is that the 2A protects the Peoples right to be equally armed as the militia. I may be misunderstanding your purpose of stating what you are.
So, let us look and see if either Heller or McDonald resulted in the overturning of the United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 concept that all male citizens are the Militia or that the people should not be armed with those weapons that are common to the militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER
So in the Heller case, the Court did not overturn the United States v. Miller decision, they simply relied upon its limitation of what might be classified as not common to the Militia, yet upheld the 2A as allowing the People to be armed.1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
~~ snipped ~~
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Now, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
M c DONALD et al. v . CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller , petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendment s. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases— United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois , 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas , 153 U. S. 535—which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
Here again, the Court upheld the 2A by reversing the lower court ruling, and did not overturn “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174”