TriggerFinger


Revisiting US v Miller


McThag thinks we should be using that ruling to push for court progress on the NFA front. I've made similar points before; I mostly agree. The Miller case does not say what the next 70 years of jurisprudence claims it said. It says some things indirectly which are not helpful, it says some things directly which are, and technically, it's unresolved.

It hasn't been used in the positive ways people think it should be because it's hard to overcome judicial inertia, I think... and also because no one with money wants to litigate the NFA on those grounds. It's trickier than it looks to put together a winning case that doesn't also lose us something. And, if we're being honest, at the Supreme Court level the justices aren't really ruling on the merits of the case in something like this. For something this foundational, they're going to end up ruling on politics. The benefit of a long campaign of minor victories in a legal campaign is that it makes the politics embarrassing to the losing side.

This entry was published Sat Sep 21 06:47:22 CDT 2019 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2019-09-17 16:43:42.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.