[Old Teufel Hunden]

"No, Miller dealt only with the suitability of a sawed-off shotgun for militia duty. Period. End of Report. Oh, by the way, ONLY the government filed a brief and had an attorney (Robert Jackson, US Solicitor General and future Supreme Court Justice) present at oral arguments."

And if Miller's case had been argued before the court, the lawyer could have simply pointed out that shotguns had been used in the military less than 20 years before as a trench clearing weapon during the Great War. Therefore, it is a suitable weapon for the militia. If the court had that argued, they would have most likely ruled in favor of Miller.

[Ancesthntr]

And if Miller's case had been argued before the court, the lawyer could have simply pointed out that shotguns had been used in the military less than 20 years before as a trench clearing weapon during the Great War. Therefore, it is a suitable weapon for the militia. If the court had that argued, they would have most likely ruled in favor of Miller.

Absolutely. Same with a machine gun - and Scalia specifically stated so in the Heller opinion. As it is, we've had 69 years of a thoroughly misunderstood and purposely misrepresented right. We'll likely have to endure a few more until the Court corrects all of Miller's inadequacies. Which is, IMHO, a good reason (one of many) to ensure that Obama never becomes the tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.