The MILLER decision has been twisted by the DISARMERS
By Don Schwarz
Unalienable rights acknowledged in the Constitution are to be LIBERALLY CONSTRUED. Court decisions addressing unalienable rights, are to be LIBERALLY CONSTRUED. Statutes are to be specifically defined and applied. Rights are LIBERALLY exercised, laws are to be narrowly applied.
The MILLER decision is to be LIBERALLY APPLIED to the lawful possession of firearms, not to be a conditional limitation on the possession of firearms. What good would the right against self-incrimination and the right to a jury trial, if MIRANDA was narrowly applied like MILLER?
What good was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, securing the protection of rights of all Americans, when in Democrat controlled southern States, Blacks were treated like second-class Americans? Court interpretations are to be an expression of the protection of rights, not statutes enacted by the Legislature. Only laws that are constitutional in the protection of rights have any standing. So the default is: All laws must protect unalienable rights.
This is how they are to be interpreted.
The MILLER decision, is to be interpreted as to the advancement of who can possess firearms, not how such right is to be restricted. If the MILLER decision had any standing to restrict the possession of firearms by lawful Americans, such would be noted in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
It is NOT! Also, the National Guard is not the "militia".
When you are in the National Guard, you are "in paid service" to the government of the United States from day one. Volunteer Militia members while in training and maybe over 30 years training, RECEIVE NO PAY!
THE NATIONAL GUARD AND "MILITIA" ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!
To be "militia" is the exercise of a constitutional right; to be "National Guard" is a paid privilege. NO LAW can reduce a constitutional right to a mere paid privilege. Further, the "militia" is as defined by the Constitution and not by some mere law enacted by Congress. Can Congress define what a "jury" is? What "religion" is? The usage of these words as exhibited in the Constitution, are the current definitions until we the people change the meaning of those words.
"The Constitution is about "things" not words; you cannot change the name of a "thing" in order to avoid the Constitution". Craig Vs Missouri, 29 US 410, 433
You cannot name a firearm an "assault weapon" then deny it to lawful Americans because of the name. And, for a law to have any constitutional standing at all, the law must have been enacted upon "concrete conditions" which support the enactment of the law. See: Mutual Loan Insurance Co. Vs Martell, 222 US 225.
For "sawed-off" shotguns to be banned to lawful Americans, or any type firearm, a rock solid case has to be made for such that sawed-off are EVIL, most of the time they are used by lawful Americans.
You can NEVER restrict the right of a lawful American, based upon the actions of criminals. It wouldn't be long before there were no rights.
Please use this information wisely.