Because the Court was obviously trying to establish that such weapons are NOT needed for the security of a free republic. Get real paulsen, - you know this.
If the second amendment guarantees an individual RKBA (as you say), then why is the type of arms important to the USSC? And why must those arms be related to a militia?
Our RKBA's is an individual right, and in 'Miller' the Court was trying to defend the 1934 NFA that unconstitutionally infringed on our RKBA's.
Don't pretend you're too dense to see that point paulsen. Its dishonest.
Let's be honest here. If that were the criteria, then the right to keep and bear machine guns must be allowed -- they are certainly used by a well regulated militia in modern times.
Exactly. -- You've just made our point, and admitted that you understand why the USSC was being dishonest in Miller.
The whole idea of the '34 Act was to prohibit 'gangster type' weapons.
Very good, tpaine, there's hope for you yet.
Miller was remanded to the lower court since it was unclear whether a "shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length" had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
Now, let's say that the lower court found, after presented with evidence, that this was indeed a militia-type weapon. The case then went back to the USSC.
My question is this: Would the USSC have agreed with the lower court that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional (at least for this type of weapon)? Or, would the USSC have ruled (as the courts are ruling today) that yes, it was a militia-type weapon, but Mr. Miller wasn't associated with a militia, therefore he may not possess it?
We just can't ignore the fact that the USSC was trying to resolve a weapons relationship to a militia. This was important to the USSC for some reason. And if the second amendment was to protect the individual's ownership of gun, I cannot see why the USSC would be so hung up on "militia", actually remanding it to the lower court for clarification.