Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/25/2002 8:09:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 10:26:17 PM EDT
Contradicting itself? Welcome to the world of SCOTUS rulings!!!! If one would hold their feet to the fire, it's clear that the 2nd Amendment allows folks to own virtually any type of military weapon, subject of course to "reasonable" restriction (no nukes, no gas, etc.) IMO, for every SCOTUS ruling one could find another opposite ruling.
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 7:35:46 PM EDT
If Miller was not allowed to have the gun because it could not be legitimately be used by the Militia (not a weapon common to the military), then that would mean that the only guns that should be allowed are ones used BY our military (read M16's, et al)...
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 8:45:42 PM EDT
Basically, the supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun wasn't a military weapon, so it could be regulated with a tax stamp, which is what the NFA of '34 did. However, miller never showed up for his defense at the supreme court case. If an effective defense had been mounted, he could have shown that a short barrelled shotgun was used in WWI and is therefore a militia weapon.
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 9:00:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 6:05:26 PM EDT
You should read the analysis of Miller in the Emerson case.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 6:47:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 6:57:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 6:58:31 PM EDT by VA-gunnut]
Top Top