Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: coloradan
The decision misreads the Miller case, which, if construed in the narrowest possible way, said that *only* military weapons are protected by the Second Amendment.

Correct, and IIRC, the fact that Miller didn't show up to his appeal, and his attorney did him no favors, it was ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon, thus not protected under the 2nd Amendment. The reality of it is, sawed-off shotguns were used regularly in WWI, and had either Miller or his attorney bothered to show this, the Miller decision would have gone the other way.

44 posted on 02/23/2017 6:00:55 AM PST by IYAS9YAS (An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees! - Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: IYAS9YAS

Miller’s original attorney didn’t show up either. Further Miller argued against the constitutionlaity of the 1934 gun control act which specifically infringed upon the very firearms which the ruling claimed the 2nd amendment protected. It was a travesty.


61 posted on 02/23/2017 9:14:18 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson