That decision has been superceded. If the “military style” portion is still in effect, well, take a look at any war fought in part by irregular forces, which is pretty much every war, and you’ll soon find basically any weapon has its use. Think of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto or Iraqi insurgents. And you can’t say it only applies to regular forces like the various branches of the U.S. armed forces. Because what is a militia, after all? Not the U.S. military, whatever it is.
Besides, Miller was bogus. I don’t even think the government was opposed at the bar. Their reasoning was beside the point, also, because the weapon in question, short-barelled shotguns, were in use by the U.S. military, even though SCOTUS ruled in favor of the state.
“Besides, Miller was bogus.”
I agree yet in recent past years the antis have quoted parts of Miller as justification for their positions.
The “military style” arguement now prevailing in the anti rhetoric is equally bogus given the intent of the Framers to preserve the people’s right to overthrow a government’s tyranny.
The Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles common to the general population were superior to the military muskets of the day. To assert that the people should be restricted to inferior weapons than the government is equally bogus.