On July 20, I answered Otts Laupus’ July 15 letter responding to an earlier letter of mine. My response was that in the matter of D.C. v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was the people’s right to keep and bear arms and not the states right or the militia’s right. All of that is true and undisputable, so why then would Mr. Laupus cite a case involving an illegally altered shotgun, being transported across state lines (U.S. v. Miller, 1939) to dispute my previous statement of fact.
While I do agree that the Second Amendment is constantly being challenged, citing this particular case in no way supports his argument. Miller decided to cross state lines without the necessary registration form (a $200 taxation stamp) and with an otherwise illegal sawed off shotgun. In doing so, he broke the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller then used the Second Amendment to argue his case against the new 1934 law. In court, the judge held that Miller’s Second Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court later overturned the lower court’s ruling, stating that Miller had no Second Amendment rights to that subsequently illegal firearm.
In my opinion what the Supreme Court was stating was that the statutory law of 1934 was not unconstitutional or in contradiction to the people's right to keep and bear arms. And that the Second Amendment did not grant Miller exemption from the 1934 law. Apples and oranges, Mr. Laupus.
I do however agree with your contention that “the 2nd Amendment is what the justices say it is” at any given time. That is why whenever any of the people’s rights are under attack, we on the right will fight to defend not just the Second Amendment, but the entire Constitution. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. There is no middle ground when it comes to the Constitution of the United States.