Conservative. Idaho. Software engineer. Historian. Trying to prevent Idiocracy from becoming a documentary.
Email complaints/requests about copyright infringement to clayton @ claytoncramer.com. Reminder: the last copyright troll that bothered me went bankrupt.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." -- Rom. 8:28
Pages
▼
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Another reason the U.S. Virgin Islands Might Want to Disarm Its People
US Virgin Islands spent money intended to help after hurricanes
The U.S. Virgin Islands has redirected money intended to help pay insurance claims after large disasters for other needs, raising the vulnerability of residents as Irma ravishes the territory.
The U.S. protectorate tapped the V.I. Insurance Guaranty Fund to pay for other public services, according to government financial records reviewed by Reuters.
Since 2007, nearly $200 million was transferred from the fund, including $45 million in fiscal 2011.
I am not a lawyer, and United States v. Miller is up your alley, not mine. However as I recall the Supremes held that the later Miller's claim that his weapon was protected by the Second Amendment was not valid, because his saw-off shotgun had no militia value. A dubious claim.
Further I don't know if rulings based on the assumptions of judges can be challenged what later fact refute the judges's assumption. I do consider that the Supremes did not rule that had Miller's shotgun had militia utility if would be protected, but does seem to be a reasonable inference.
So if the Virgin Islands appropriate a class of weapons, it would show that the Virgin Islands did consider the weapons to have militia utility, those, by inference, rendering them militia weapons. Then if the VI appropriates weapons not deemed militia weapons, you got large grand theft felony.
Strictly speaking the Miller decision said the trial judge could not "take under judicial notice" that it was a militia weapon. He was supposed to get expert testimony to that effect.
You make a good point; these are now militia weapons.
I am not a lawyer, and United States v. Miller is up your alley, not mine. However as I recall the Supremes held that the later Miller's claim that his weapon was protected by the Second Amendment was not valid, because his saw-off shotgun had no militia value. A dubious claim.
ReplyDeleteFurther I don't know if rulings based on the assumptions of judges can be challenged what later fact refute the judges's assumption. I do consider that the Supremes did not rule that had Miller's shotgun had militia utility if would be protected, but does seem to be a reasonable inference.
So if the Virgin Islands appropriate a class of weapons, it would show that the Virgin Islands did consider the weapons to have militia utility, those, by inference, rendering them militia weapons. Then if the VI appropriates weapons not deemed militia weapons, you got large grand theft felony.
Just my thought.
Strictly speaking the Miller decision said the trial judge could not "take under judicial notice" that it was a militia weapon. He was supposed to get expert testimony to that effect.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point; these are now militia weapons.