TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gun-law.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

There there's this - http://www.apfn.org/apfn/2nd.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

Very interesting reading.

Wow.

Yup, they don't want that one getting out.

yep 1936 miller.....

a less that 18" shotgun is not ordinary military equipment...


however, had the justice rendering the decision had been fully informed he might have not render that decision with that verbiage....

during WWI short barreled shot guns measuring less that 18" where very common in trench warfare...
so by justices own ignorance and Mr. millers conviction we now have the verbiage that is in our favor..

I tell ya ignorance is sometimes bliss...

After reading the Bad Elk Supreme Court decision, I think this wording is questionable at best.

The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

What the court found was that the defendant had the right to resist an illegal arrest with whatever force was necessary to prevent the arrest. So rather than saying "you can kill the offenders, even if they are not trying to kill you, I think a more accurate description would be that you have the right to resist an illegal arrest with whatever force is necessary to prevent the arrest. IOW, the normal rules of self defense apply. If the officer comes to effect an arrest, you refuse and he says, "We'll be back" you can't shoot him in the back as he's leaving. If the officer draws his weapon and insists that you will be coming with him, you would have the right to draw, and to fire if you felt he was going to shoot you.

It's important to note that when the officers came to arrest Bad Elk he had broken no law and there was no warrant for his arrest. Resisting officers who came to confiscate your weapons with warrants in hand, while clearly unconstitutional, would not be the same fact pattern as the Bad Elk case, and you would have serious problems defending your actions in courts which would clearly recognize the unconstitutional law as legitimate.

If they have a warrant to take you or your guns then Bad Elk would not apply. IANAL and IDNSIAHILN

RX8er wrote: If they have a warrant to take you or your guns then Bad Elk would not apply. IANAL and IDNSIAHILN

I'm not sure if I'm more surprised by the length of that last acronym or that I figured it out in about five seconds.

Dave2 wrote:

RX8er wrote: If they have a warrant to take you or your guns then Bad Elk would not apply. IANAL and IDNSIAHILN

I'm not sure if I'm more surprised by the length of that last acronym or that I figured it out in about five seconds.

Took me a minute, but do you mean I Did Not Sleep At a Holiday Inn (lack of the word "Express" threw me off) Last Night?

LSUTiger wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

RX8er wrote: If they have a warrant to take you or your guns then Bad Elk would not apply. IANAL and IDNSIAHILN

I'm not sure if I'm more surprised by the length of that last acronym or that I figured it out in about five seconds.

Took me a minute, but do you mean I Did Not Sleep At a Holiday Inn (lack of the word "Express" threw me off) Last Night?

IDNSAAHILN... ??

You guys got it... I Did Not Sleep I A Holiday Inn Last Night.....

RX8er wrote:You guys got it... I Did Not Sleep I A Holiday Inn Last Night.....

I Did Not Sleep At A Holiday Inn Express Last Night.

IDNSAAHIELN

Anygunanywhere

let me see if I can correctly word what my husband the law nerd (he'd love to go to law school) explained to me last night about the Miller decision.

Miller didn't actually show up to court, he ran off to Canada, this is a problem.
So the decision is actually a negative,
it's "you didn't prove that sawed off shotguns aren't used in war"
Had Miller actually shown up he might have presented evidence and we would have a decision that could be used, instead according to my husband, it's kinda iffy.

SewTexas wrote:let me see if I can correctly word what my husband the law nerd (he'd love to go to law school) explained to me last night about the Miller decision.

Miller didn't actually show up to court, he ran off to Canada, this is a problem.
So the decision is actually a negative,
it's "you didn't prove that sawed off shotguns aren't used in war"
Had Miller actually shown up he might have presented evidence and we would have a decision that could be used, instead according to my husband, it's kinda iffy.

Actually, wasn't the reason MIller did not show up was becasue he was dead?

Anygunanywhere

It's important to note that when the officers came to arrest Bad Elk he had broken no law and there was no warrant for his arrest. Resisting officers who came to confiscate your weapons with warrants in hand, while clearly unconstitutional, would not be the same fact pattern as the Bad Elk case, and you would have serious problems defending your actions in courts which would clearly recognize the unconstitutional law as legitimate.

Moving past the Holiday Inn, I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.

I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.

Jumping Frog wrote:<SNIP> I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.

I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.

Maybe the time to argue is in the undisclosed location where you are being held without charges and indefinitely.