Hickman v. Block Case Exposed
James Mayer
Cite as Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
DOUGLAS RAY HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
> This case turns on the first constitutional standing element:
whether
>Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second
Amendment. We
>note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in
demonstrating such
>injury in federal court.
Then why was Miller allowed to proceed if he had no standing to do so?
If no one has had any standing then why is there a list of cases before
an examination of the footnotes where individuals have brought just such
cases to court?
The seminal authority in this area continues to be
>United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme
Court upheld
>a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934),
for
>transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce.
No conviction was up held in this case. In fact there was no
conviction of Miller on these charges at all up to this point.
>The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment
protected
>his possession of that weapon.
Miller didn't appeal the case, the government did.
> Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court found
that the
>right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the
states
>to keep and maintain armed militia.
States have no rights, only powers.
In a famous passage, the Court held that,
>
> '[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that the
possession or
>use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length" at
>this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of
>a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees
>the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 307 U.S. at 178.
[footnote 5]'
Didn't say a thing about Miller's not having standing, now, did
they?
> The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text.
A court that can't even determine if someone was convicted or who the
appealant was? (see above)
>The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the
>security of "a free state;"
No, it is preserving "the right of the people" that is the goal.
>its first clause establishes the premise that
>well-regulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
>furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and
bear
>arms" is finally proclaimed. [footnote 6]
> Following Miller, "[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment
guarantees a
>collective rather than an individual right.
Collectives don't have rights. Would they say the same thing about the
protections declared in the first amendment? Are not "the people" in
the first the same as the ones in the Second?
" United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d
>103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 96 S.Ct. 3168 (1976); see also Thomas
v.
>Members of City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1984)
(same,
>citing Warin); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.
1974)
>(cited with approval in Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65 n.8) (same).
Just in case someone thinks that denial of cert. means that the Supreme
Court agrees with the lower court decision, read what the Supreme court
has to say about that themselves:
"...this [Supreme] Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial [to
hear a case] carries with it no implication whatever regarding the
Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to
review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the
admonition has to be repeated."
(Justice Frankfurter, Maryland v. Broadcast Radio Show, Inc. 338 US
912, 1950)
Because the Second
>Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia,
the
>states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right
is
>infringed.
>
Again, states do not have rights, only powers granted by the people.
Foot notes:
5. The Supreme Court has not revisited the meaning of the
Second Amendment except to cite Miller for the proposition that
federal restrictions on the use of firearms by individuals do not
"trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (upholding 18 U.S.C. App. section
1202(a)(1)).
Let's look at the whole quote, shall we?
8. These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are
neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench
upon any constitutionally protected liberties.
Lewis was a previously convicted felon found in possession of a gun. Of
course they don't "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties"
because those liberties hadn't been restored. by court order or by the
governor of the state where was convicted. If Lewis had persued those
avenues and was sucessful, then he would have had a better chance of
beating his case. It is amusing that the court in Hickman picked out
only this portion of a footnote to use as support for their decision.
They seemed to leave out the part that Lewis was a convicted felon.
Johnny Johnson
James Mayer is referring is the propagandist for Handgun Control
Incorporated: Dennis "Lying Little Denney" Henigan.
James Mayer wrote:
> Hickman v. Block Case Exposed
>
> Cite as Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
>
> DOUGLAS RAY HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
>
>> This case turns on the first constitutional standing element:
>> whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the
>> Second Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has
>> ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court.
>
> Then why was Miller allowed to proceed if he had no standing to do
> so? If no one has had any standing then why is there a list of
> cases before an examination of the footnotes where individuals have
> brought just such cases to court?
>
>> The seminal authority in this area continues to be United States
>> v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court upheld
>> a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132
>> (1934), for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce.
>
> No conviction was up held in this case. In fact there was no
> conviction of Miller on these charges at all up to this point.
IN FACT, there was _never_ a conviction of Jack Miller on the charge.
>> The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second
>> Amendment protected his possession of that weapon.
>
> Miller didn't appeal the case, the government did.
That's why it was styled:
"The United States of America,
Appellant
v.
Jack Miller and Frank Layton,
Appellees"
>> Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
>> found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
>> protect the right of the states to keep and maintain armed
>> militia.
That is _not_ what the "Miller" court found or said.
> States have no rights, only powers.
>
>> In a famous passage, the Court held that, '[i]n the absence of
>> any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a
>> "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
>> length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
>> preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we
>> cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to
>> keep and bear such an instrument. 307 U.S. at 178.
>> [footnote 5]'
See: no mention of a "state maintained armed militia". This was a
figment of "Lying Little Denney" Henigan's propaganda-inspired
imagination.
> Didn't say a thing about Miller's not having standing, now,
> did they?
>
>> The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
>> Amendment's text.
>
> A court that can't even determine if someone was convicted or who
> the appealant was? (see above)
>
>> The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to
>> preserve the security of "a free state;"
>
> No, it is preserving "the right of the people" that is the goal.
>
>> its first clause establishes the premise that well-regulated
>> militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance
>> of state security that "the right of the people to keep and
>> bear arms" is finally proclaimed. [footnote 6]
>>
>> Following Miller, "[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment
>> guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.
>
> Collectives don't have rights. Would they say the same thing about
> the protections declared in the first amendment? Are not "the
> people" in the first the same as the ones in the Second?
[snip]