The Right to Bear Bazookas: A New Take on the Second Amendment

by Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:19 pm

Mr. Cornell is a professor of history at Ohio State University and author of A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America (Oxford, 2006).

The Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia has decided to strike down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision, known as Parker, casts aside more than 70 years of established jurisprudence. The Appeals Court’s revisionist reading ofU.S. v. Miller, (1939) the controlling Supreme Court precedent, is highly problematic. According to the majority opinion in Parker, Miller was only concerned with the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. If the decision is not reversed it ought to mean plenty of new business for the manufactures of flame throwers, bazookas, and Stinger missiles who are certain to welcome the DC Court’s lunatic logic.

The Right to Bear Bazookas: A New Take on the Second Amendment 0195147863.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_

The Miller case has never been understood to protect weapons solely based on their military function. Miller applied a two-prong test to determine the relevance of the Second Amendment to gun laws. A weapon had to be both of a type typically associated with the militia and used in some activity reasonably connected with a well-regulated militia. The Miller court correctly realized that an exclusive focus on the type of weapon could lead to the absurd result implicit in the current Appeals Court’s ruling. Indeed, the federal courts moved quickly to reject this potentially perverse result in Cases v. United States (1942). If Miller’s rule only applied to the type of weapon and protected all militia-style weapons then “Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons . . . of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns.... It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.”

In contrast to the Parker decision, the Supreme Court in Miller wrote that the Second Amendment was crafted to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [as the militia]” and “it must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” While it is true that the opinion discussed the expansive nature of the Founding era’s militia, it did not adopt the modern gun rights view that the unorganized militia is the same as the well-regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment. The universal militia esteemed by many of the Founders, and the more elite select militias favored by others in the Founding era, were both well-regulated, ie., controlled by law. The modern unorganized militia is by definition not well regulated.

Reactions to Miller among legal scholars at the time it was decided support the orthodox reading of the case. A contemporary report of the decision in the California Law Review at the time was typical. It noted that the Court “held that the right refers to the people as a collective body.” Thus, in U.S. v. Tot, (1942) another federal court held that “it is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption . . . that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.” Tot’s collective rights reading of Miller soon became the standard interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment by the federal courts for the next seventy years.

Rather than apply the orthodox interpretation of Miller, the Parker court turned to a more recent case, U.S. v. Emerson. This controversial case was the first to assert that the Second Amendment was about the civilian use of firearms. Following the Emerson Court, the Parker Court relied more heavily on what was not said in the Miller decision, than what was said. “On the question whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right, the Court’s opinion in Miller is most notable for what it omits.” Essentially, the Court in Parker decided to fill in the blanks with its own ideological preferences. This makes for bad law and even worse history. One might just as easily claim the Miller court did not use the collective rights language because it was so pervasive at the time that there was no need to belabor such an obvious point.

There is no need to listen to the sounds of silence to interpret Miller. The regulation of civilian weapons was, and always has been something to be regulated by the state subject to common law restrictions and the scope of the state’s broad, but not unlimited police powers. If the DC gun law is a bad policy it ought to be repealed, not struck down by activist conservative judges.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/36531

I posted this from a link of interesting topics

“Since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than died in all U.S. wars going back to the American Revolution.” — NYT Columnist Nicholas Kristof

Commentary & News

[*]Joe Nocera: 2nd Amendment: What Did the Framers Really Mean?
[*]Jack Rakove: Scalia's selective history
[*]Jim Castagnera: The Firearms Dilemma
[*]Sanford Levinson: DC v. Heller ... A Dismaying Performance By The Supreme Court
[*]David E. Young: Why DC's Gun Law Is Unconstitutional
[*]Historians file brief in SCOTUS in support of DC gun law
[*]Saul Cornell: The Second Amendment Goes to Court
[*]Adam Freedman: The comma and the 2nd Amendment
[*]Saul Cornell: The Right to Bear Bazookas: A New Take on the Second Amendment
[*]Robert Spitzer: Working Hard to Misconstrue the 2nd Amendment
[*]Saul Cornell: It's Time for Gun Control Proponents to Reclaim the Constitutional High Ground
[*]Don B. Kates: Shouldn't People Who Favor Gun Control Favor War in Iraq?
[*]Don B. Kates: Do Guns Cause Crime?
[*]P.M. Carpenter: Did You Think John Ashcroft Wasn't Serious About Guns?
[*]Keith Miller: The West:"With a Draw From Either Hand" ... Gunslingers of the Old West
[*]Robert Spitzer: Review of Alexander DeConde's Gun Violence in America: The Struggle for Control

Michael Bellesiles Scandal

[*]How the Bellesiles Story Developed
[*]Daniel Justin Herman: Review of Michael A. Bellesiles's Arming America
[*]Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Do the People Who Favorably Reviewed the Bellesiles Book Owe Readers an Apology?
[*]Don Williams: Could Bellesiles's Problems Undermine Gun Control?
[*]Ronald Radosh: Michael Bellesiles Is PC

by 'Wolfie Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:24 am

I wouldn't mind having a Stinger missile parked in my backyard...

It could put a stop to that minority of noisy coal truck and semi-trailer drivers forgetting/neglecting to turn off their exhaust brakes in the early hours..

The Right to Bear Bazookas: A New Take on the Second Amendment