[supercat]

My reading of their decision is consistent with the idea that the lower court which ruled that the Second Amendment protected the defendant should offer the prosecution the opportunity to continue with their case, but that the PROSECUTION would have to prove that the shotgun is NOT suitable.

I've not read the briefs in Miller, but I would expect the prosecution would have made a prima facie case that sawed-off shotguns weren't "militia" weapons. If not, they certainly could have done so easily. The burden would then have been on Miller/Layton to rip that prima facie case to shreds, which they too could have done easily.

[William Tell]

supercat said: "I've not read the briefs in Miller, but I would expect the prosecution would have made a prima facie case that sawed-off shotguns weren't "militia" weapons. "

I don't think that the lower court would be required to accept a light burden of proof. Unlike the Miller Court, the lower court made the right decision to begin with. Even with an invented "suitability" test, I could imagine the lower court dismissing again for lack of evidence. What evidence would convince such a lower court? The need for close quarters with a sawed-off shotgun is no more limiting than that needed for use of a bayonet.