Also, the CalNRA.ogr said Deputy Attorney General Tim Rieger made similar distinctions when he stated, “Since 1937, the Second Amendment, as you all know, in the United States Supreme Court case Miller, it’s been interpreted to say, let’s be fair, that the right to keep and bear arms, is not personal, but instead lies with the militias of the states. The bottom line is, Miller says that, and all cases except Emerson in the Texas District Court, have basically follow suit.” (above quotes in World Net Daily, July 20, 2000, Jon Dougherty, California expanding laws on ‘assault weapons’...)

I looked up the case. First of all, it was a 1939 case (not 1937), United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)(USSC+). The indictment was against Jack Miller and Frank Layton for transporting a double-barrel 12-guage shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long from Oklahoma to Arkansas without having registered it or having a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the National Firearms Act.

Initially, it was held that the indictment:

(1) [was] Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases.
(2) [did] Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

And, concluded: “The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

As one can see, the court did not rule “...that the right to keep and bear arms, is not personal, but instead lies with the militias of the states.” It merely stated it could NOT state for certain that the weapon was protected by the 2nd Amendment.

On appeal, the interposed demurrer alleged: “The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure, but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, I don’t know where these so-called 'experts' in government came from (probably attorneys who cheated their way through law school or took a dumb-ass pill in order to qualify for their jobs), but -- the Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice J. McReynolds held that section eleven of the National Firearms Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. (26 F. Supp. 1002, reversed.)

Did you get that - quashed (NULLIFIED) the indictment; REVERSED the decision.

Now, Folks, I don’t know about you but I am rather sick and tired of spokespeople for the government lying out their butts or giving misleading statements to the press. The official position of the US Government may be that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia. But, what the hell do dumb _______(fill in the blank) such as Rieger get off presenting its as law? That was his intent as indicated clearly by his wording.

The US Government may have any position it wishes but whether or not it is enforceable as law in the 50 States is the real issue. Shoot, we all know that the government’s position is to confiscate all firearms from the free people of this nation. But, you see, it doesn’t have that power, no matter what its overpaid attorneys may state or what it may wish to believe.

Only an idiot could misread the 2nd Amendment and try to prove the militia is other than what it is. It is the PEOPLE, you “why-don’t-you-get-your-heads-back-out-into-the-sunlight” legislators and spokespeople.

The 2nd Amendment, along with the others thought of as the Bill of Rights, are individual unalienable rights granted by God, not privileges written in for show. It is our right to keep and bear any arms we want and can afford.

It is a necessity in order to protect ourselves from the federal government. That is the meaning of “...security of a free State’ in the 2nd Amendment. It means the ‘state of being free’. Otherwise, it would have stated ‘...the security of the many free States’.

What really gripes me is that many people who can read assume the statements by people such as Rieger and statements made by NRA spokespeople are based on truth. Those who can’t read will hear it on the news. Either way, since it was written or spoken by those in the media, statements based on falsehoods will be treated as “the truth” which, in reality, couldn’t be further from the truth.

Now, of course, I wonder just what in the world is wrong with the people in California. It is obvious they must own many assault weapons along with other firearms. Why are they not forcing the legislature to repeal and not base any further actions on unconstitutional laws?

Or do they plan on becoming criminals based on unconstitutional laws? Do they plan on being imprisoned as examples for the government to use in order to instill increased fear in the people of this nation?

Do they plan on giving up or registering firearms which are constitutionally legal without registration and not within the power of government to confiscate?

I know some stupid state government person is going to rely on the Tenth Amendment to show the state has power to make any law it wishes. But, that just ain’t so. Article VI, Clauses 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America (not the federal constitution as stated by Rieger - Geez, what a lousy traitor he is to the American people) limits state governments. No state may make any law in contradiction to the Constitution and its amendments.

Also, Clause 3 of Article VI states government must support the Constitution of the United States of America. Any legislators who do not, or any member of a State government who has taken an oath to do the same are traitors to this nation and should be impeached or fired.

Why do we continue to put up with the crap from government and its ignorant spokespeople? Why do we not exercise the power the people have over every level of government?

For your information, and theirs, the people have plenary power over government. This means we have absolute power. We may change government any time we wish. We may change State constitutions. We may change any law any legislature has passed. We may rid ourselves of any who do not uphold their oaths of office. We may move State capitols. We may fence of the District of Columbia, declare it null and void and establish a central government in another location.

IT - IS - OURS - TO - DO - WITH - AS - WE - WILL.

The question is: What is the People’s will - to be enslaved?

Or, to be free?