If so, someone please straighten me out.
I understand what Mr. Levy is trying to accomplish here, but one statement really caught my eye:
In fact, the Court of Appeals did not suggest that any federal gun regulations (including those on machine guns) are unconstitutional. Moreover, under the Supreme Court’s 1939 precedent, U.S. v. Miller, machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment without showing that they are in common use by civilians. [emphasis added -ed]
In common use by civilians? That didn’t sound right to me so I looked it up.
Here is the pertinent statement from the Miller decision:
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. [emphasis added -ed]
I suppose that one could argue that the statement is vague, but I would submit that, because the discussion revolved around militia (i.e. military) service, that they intended for it to mean “in common MILITARY use at the time.”
That is borne out by the fact that the overall basis of the decision was that the evidence provided to the court did not demonstrate that a “short barreled shotgun” served any practical militia (i.e. military) use:
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.
Furthermore, the REASON that “machine guns” are not in common civilian use is due to the draconian federal restrictions that make them all but unobtainable for the average citizen…laws that were originally passed under the guise of “revenue generation” in order to pass constitutional muster, but have since been amended into outright infringement upon their ownership.
His argument seems to be that if the press were outlawed for long enough before a challenge to the law reached the Supreme Court, the law could be ruled Constitutional because it restricts something that doesn’t exist…the press that was abolished by the law being challenged. Talk about circular logic. It makes my head hurt.
I’m the last person to have any wish to do violence to the Heller case, but I have a problem with apparent disingenuousness. Twisting words to make them seem to mean something other than their plain language is the tactic of anti-freedom forces and should NEVER be used by freedom advocates to advance the cause.
The ends DO NOT justify the means. My father taught me years ago that honesty is ALWAYS the best policy. He was a very wise man. I have said this time and time again…the truth is on our side, we do not need to lie, mislead or misdirect to achieve our goals and doing so WILL turn around and bite us in the future. By taking the low road, as Mr. Levy appears to be doing here, we impugn our own character and do more harm to our cause than good.