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]