Legal Mindset
News • Politics • Culture
A home for those who want to be their own judge of law, news and culture. We take complex concepts and explain them simply.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
United States v. Miller (Second Amendment Case Law Review)

"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"

Key Principle: A sawed off shotgun is distinguishable from other firearms, and therefore may be regulated, because it is not "ordinary equipment" and may not "contribute to the common defense."

United States vs. Miller is an old Supreme Court case, stemming from 1939, but there would not be another DIRECT Second Amendment case for almost 7 decades in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs Heller (covered previously). It's one that's cited by both sides, as anti-2A forces say it authorizes regulation of weapons, while the pro-2A position states that it broadly protects weapons that are common military equipment or that contribute to the common defense.

The background of the case stems from the National Firearm Act, passed after the St. Valentines Day Massacre and other Chicago Gang violence, which required certain types of firearms, such as fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit, which eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The defendants, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, were charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shot gun with a less than 18 inch-long barrel from Oklahoma to Arkansas, in violation of the National Firearms Act. However, the defendants argued that the Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment.

The 1939 Supreme Court ultimately decided that the National Firearms Act did not violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved power of the states. The reasoned that because they were not presented with any evidence showing that the possession of use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Therefore, it was not within judicial notice that the weapon was, at the time, part of ordinary military equipment or that its use would contribute to the common defense. Justice Reynold's said that the effectiveness of the militia was an obvious purpose for the Second Amendment, and therefore, regulations must be applied with that view in mind.

We then fast forward and apply this, seemingly mixed, case law to today, specifically towards challenges to firearms labelled as assault weapons. This is precisely the position taken by a California Judge Roger T. Benitez in the case of (ironically) Miller vs Bonta, Attorney General of California, where Judge Benitez held that California's AR-15 ban was unconstitutional, citing BOTH DC v. Heller and US v. Miller in his ruling. He states that the AR-15 is the perfect weapon both for home defense AND homeland defense (i.e. common defense) and is therefore the quintessential weapon protected by the Second Amendment.

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
LOCALS SUPPORTER EXCLUSIVE - Gina Carano Star Wars Crawl

This will DEFINITELY be censored by YouTube, but want to provide to my Locals supporters in case you want to use it in a video or for fun. I paid a little bit of dinero for this, but totally worth it!

Crack a Bantha Milk ladies and gentlemen, this lawsuit is going to be yet another WILD ride

00:01:36
Wet Ass Roof

So if y'all remember at the end of my stream, I was discussing a certain dripping sound well...check the quick video below for part of what went down...

Actually turned into an even more Biblical flood before the water was finally shut off. Long story short, I'll need to relocate from my current apartment for a few days so I will have a premiere out, but may need to reschedule my weekend lives or do them at alternative times. Standby!

00:00:04
Locals Exclusive- Uvalde Footage Review

I know I say this often but this is HARD to watch. No blood or gore just severe incompetence and the knowledge that children died due to such. I do give a serious content warning therefore, but regardless, I think it is important to talk about as we need justice to be served here.

This will be Locals Exclusive (although open to all) because YouTube may decide to censor this type of content in the future.

00:19:36
Big Lawyer - Big Iron Cover

This one was submitted by a fan and absolutely it'll get me in trouble on YouTube most likely because of the underlying beat, but it absolutely needs to be out there for you guys to enjoy!

Big Lawyer - Big Iron Cover
Animal Farm Recording - Book Club

Attached is the recording of our book club discussion on Animal Farm

Animal Farm Recording - Book Club
Locals Exclusive - Ender's Game Book Club Talk (Audio Only)

Here is the audio only version of the November Book Club discussion .

As a note, we'll likely end up doing Animal Farm for December (book, movie, or cartoon) as it was previously voted highly and it's quite short, so an easy read over the busy holidays. But I will be putting up a poll and taking suggestions for January 2023!

Locals Exclusive - Ender's Game Book Club Talk (Audio Only)
JUST IN TIME

Luckily my taxi was fast so made my flight to Japan, thanks to everyone who joined on YouTube and Locals! I will keep you all updated, especially of any nuisance streamer sightings!

Stay based!

post photo preview
Live chatted 02/20/2025
Lawyer Reacts To Destiny's Public Statement (LIVE)

Come join for an impromptu stream!

Live chatted 02/19/2025
Destiny Lawsuit Revealed (LIVE)

Come join!

Google Monopoly
Will It Break Up?

I meant to comment on this but as it's been a few days, I wanted to make it a Locals exclusive take. 

For some background, as you may or may not know, Judge Amit Mehta said in a 286-page ruling that Google was a monopoly, and that it violated the Sherman Act through its exclusionary distribution contacts. Evidence presented at the trial showed that Google paid $26 billion in 2021 to ensure that its search engine was the default on almost all devices, such as Apple's iPhone.

The question is, what happens from here? 

First of all, Google is already appealing this decision, so the conclusion to this case is two to three years out at best. We often get hyped about legal results, thinking they will be immediate but this is a great example of how things can take a long time to work through the system and how lawsuits don't always solve problems in the best way (very slowly and incrementally). 

Second, a total breakup of Google is unlikely. At best, we might get a spin-off (or divestment) of Google's Chrome internet browser and it's Android operating system. This is no TKO for Google, which will continue to expand it's reach in other ways and also continue it's collaborations with various national governments, which are far more concerning. 

Hope you all enjoyed this article, I hope to write them when I have the opportunity! 

- Andrew Esq.

Read full Article
Trans Athletes? Scotus Will Allow It
Accelerationism or Apathy?

Hard to decide whether the failure of SCOTUS to intervene in overturning the appeal courts injunction which prefrnts West Virginia from barring trans students from athletics is a true win. 

The instant case issue here was that Weat Virginia could not name any specific trans atheletes that were at risk of causing issues in the state. Thus the case could return once we see an biological man cracking skulls in female wrestling. 

Lets be clear, based on precedent and this current courts voting history, I suspect they may bend the knee on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. 

My longer term question is this though: 

Is SCOTUS truly going full accelerationist or are they just apathic on orientation and gender identity issues? 

Accelerationism, or the thought that we need to make things worse in order for them to fail and reset (to an ideal state) - always seems more of an academic or meme argument.  While I know a select frw are truly committed to the concept, most talk big online but back down when it hits their friends or family. It's also hard for me to believe that the boomer boy & girl scouts on SCOTUS are "doing it for the lulz" - that would not be their sense of humor.

I'd love to hear y'all thoughts. 


I'll link a full article on the topic below: 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3937891-supreme-court-rules-west-virginia-transgender-athletes-can-compete-on-female-sports-teams/amp/

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals