TexasCHLforum.com

I was reading "Unintended Consequences" and came across this particular quote:

Finally, no one had pointed out, as had District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon, that militia weapons were, by definition, the personal arms of the
private citizenry, and therefore whether or not a particular weapon was issued to army troops was completely irrelevant.

After looking at the Heller decision, I came away with the impression that SCOTUS did not think a militia or individual had the right to carry any Military-type weapon. Yet this insightful statement makes complete sense to me. What happened here, did that Lawyer blow this too?

The point of Heller's lawsuit was for him to legally have a hangun at home to protect himself, after he gets home from a long day at work where he carries a handgun to protect the rich and politically connected.

Captain Matt wrote:The point of Heller's lawsuit was for him to legally have a hangun at home to protect himself, after he gets home from a long day at work where he carries a handgun to protect the rich and politically connected.

I am talking about the legal-argument that was prevented at SCOTUS, not the issue itself.

IANAL, nor do I wish to be, but as I understand it judges really don't like it when someone wastes their time by going off on a tangent that has no bearing to the case at hand. So anything that was unrelated to the case that was not asked by the judges was not brought up.

G.A. Heath wrote:IANAL, nor do I wish to be, but as I understand it judges really don't like it when someone wastes their time by going off on a tangent that has no bearing to the case at hand. So anything that was unrelated to the case that was not asked by the judges was not brought up.

If SCOTUS judges were so annoyed about the small stuff and tangents they should have ruled that the 2A means no infringement like it says and declared all infringements unconstitutional.

Anygunanywhere

The issue before the court was that the second amendment was an individual right and that Heller had to be allowed to legally posses a handgun in his own home. His lawsuit used that as a basis to get an order saying the city must allow him to register, posses, and own a handgun. The justices at the supreme court ruled that this was the case. They did not, nor should they, try to expand the issue before them to include other tangent issues. We got what we wanted a ruling stating that the second amendment IS an individual right and we can now use other cases to move on into areas that the case did not cover and further restore our rights.

we can now use other cases to move on into areas that the case did not cover

The Heller case was judicial inefficiency at it's worst. But that's the way it works.

I really should not have brought up the whole issue without realizing that if you haven't read the book, the question appears totally out of context.

The question is based on the premise that historically, SCOTUS asks questions that MIGHT have a bearing on the issue at hand. In the Heller case, the issue of which arms were used by the Military and which should be used by civilians DID indeed come up.

I need to get back to reading now...

I thought you were looking at the transcripts of the oral arguments and not looking at the court opinion. Yes the militia angle is covered in the opinion, some of the friend of the court briefs, ect.

The lawyer's job was to win the case for his clients and overturn a local law in DC, not get SCOTUS to overturn NFA and GCA and other federal laws.

Like I said above, I shouldn't have started this thread without at least providing a little more background on the book that I was reading.

It is a remarkable book and is very thought provoking. If you haven't read it, my query seems like it is totally out of right-field, and for that I apologize.

It's a good book but it's also fiction.

Captain Matt wrote:It's a good book but it's also fiction.

Not to be rude, but look at the cover...

As The Court pointed out in dicta, a gulf has ensued between the weapons a militiaman might well keep in his home and modern weapons of war.

casingpoint wrote:As The Court pointed out in dicta, a gulf has ensued between the weapons a militiaman might well keep in his home and modern weapons of war.

The reason the gulf exists is a direct result of infringement and the lack of enforcing the Constitution and BOR by the three branches of the government, the government that derives power from us.

Anygunanywhere