2nd Amendment - from www.findlaw.com

[BerettaCougar]

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

It can't contribute to common defense? a compact shotgun would be a great home defense tool.. Just look at this.. http://www.serbu.com/shorty.htm

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

 

[Number 6]

Misinterpretation

You misstate the court's position. It did NOT say that short-barreled shotguns do not contribute to the common defense, it said:

''In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia..."

Got that? It was not given ANY EVIDENCE of that fact. No evidence on the subject, no decision on that subject. Period.

 

[BerettaCougar]

Got what?
"evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

So wait if a judge thinks a firearm does not show it's use in the military that it isnt covered by the 2nd amendment?

What part of shall not be infringed don't YOU get?

Got THAT? shall not be infringed. PERIOD

 

[KSFreeman]

BC, correct, the Miller test is weaponcentric. The weapon must have a reasonable relationship to military service. Court did not have evidence that short-barreled shotguns were used in military even though they have been since War for Independence.

In Miller the Defendant (a bootlegger named Jack Miller from Arkansas) was not represented before the Supreme Court only at the trial court level. The Supreme Court made the decision only hearing the government's argument.

Just imagine if Miller were represented or that Miller had a Tommy gun instead of a sawed off shotgun. Court could not have closed its eyes to smg's use in military.

 

[Number 6]

Read more; rant less

"So wait if a judge thinks a firearm does not show it's [sic] use in the military that it isnt [sic] covered by the 2nd amendment?"

Once AGAIN, courts only address issues based upon the evidence presented. Appellate courts only address issues based upon evidence presented at the trial. Have you finally grasped that much?

Now for the reeeaaaaallllllly big leap: There was NO EVIDENCE relating to a short shotgun being suitable for defense presented at the TRIAL level. Therefore, it was improper for that argument to be made at the APPELLATE level.

All the court said - and it did so clearly to anyone reading the decision objectively - is that it had no evidence before it regarding the suitability of a short shotgun in a militia application and, therefore, it COULD NOT address a newly presented argument regarding Second Amendment protections of such a firearm.

Rabid fulminations add nothing to the discourse.