US v Miller (was Re: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change

[Reese]

At 20:25 9/6/2001 -0700, keyser-soze at hushmail.com wrote:

 >I was referring to the raft of federal firearms regulations and
 >prosecutions which ignore the clear interpretation of Miller v.
 >U.S.: that the right to keep and bear arms with obvious military
 >use shall not be regulated.
 >
 >The opinion didn't exactly say this because Jack Miller, a bank
 >robber and moonshiner, could not afford representation before the
 >SC and in fact died of apparent self-inflicted wounds before the
 >hearing date.

I read he was a moonshiner and was murdered, possibly by competing
moonshiners.

 >His co-defendent
 >Frank Layton apparently decided he wasn't interested in defending
 >our rights under the 2nd and took four years probation.

I read he fled.

 >But despite the lack of
 >defendent representation the opinion, written by Justice James Clark
 >McReynolds, was notable in that it did not completely cave in to the
 >government demands.
 >
 >The case was returned to the lower court where Miller, if living,
 >could have made further arguments on his own behalf. He could have
 >easily and correctly argued that short-barreled shotguns had been
 >popular military weapons in the trenches of the First World War. It
 >was lucky for the federal government that he was dead.

Isn't that amazing.

 >The courts and Congress have turned this opinion on its head to suit
 >their own purposes and because many/most in power see such citizen
 >empowerment as nothing short of a Constitutional suicide pact and
 >refuse to accept it.  They can't remove the Second but they can try
 >and interpret it away.

What is your source for all this?  This case is a point of interest
for me and such details as you have provided are not contained in the
text of the ruling, so where did they come from?

Reese