[Mogollon]

Even the 1939 Miller decision (that most anti's cite) only stated that a sawed off shotgun was not weapon commonly used by the military and therefore was not a militia weapon.

However, it's interesting to note that the marines used sawed-off shotguns in the south pacific during WWII as banzai stoppers.

[neverdem]

Our troops used shotguns in World War I.

[MileHi]

Even the 1939 Miller decision (that most anti's cite) only stated that a sawed off shotgun was not weapon commonly used by the military and therefore was not a militia weapon.

However, it's interesting to note that the marines used sawed-off shotguns in the south pacific during WWII as banzai stoppers.

The court actually said that since it "is not within judicial notice" that a short barreled shotgun was commonly used by the military, since no one showed up to argue Millers side. They could not just assume facts not in evidence. The decision has been mischaratorixed ever since.

[El Gato]

However, it's interesting to note that the marines used sawed-off shotguns in the south pacific during WWII as banzai stoppers.

Well, short barreled ones at any rate. They had also used them in the various "banana wars" which were ongoing or had just subsided, when the Miller decision was rendered. The problem was of course that no one presented that information at either trial court or the Supreme Court There was no appeals court action, the government had appealed directly to the Supreme Court, where only the government was represented, which is why no one presented that little tidbit to the SC. At the trial court level, the judge took "judicial notice" (although not formally) that the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not just militia suitable arms, although the Supreme pretended that they had taken notice, without hearing any evidence to that effect, that the short barreled shotgun was suitable for militia use.

Of course it's too bad that the moonshiner didn't have a BAR or Thompson, instead of some POS single shot. The Supreme Court would have looked pretty silly arguing that either of those was not suitable for a well regulated militia.

[painter]

However, it's interesting to note that the marines used sawed-off shotguns in the south pacific during WWII as banzai stoppers.

That would have been deadly medicine for a banzi charge.12guage 00 Buck.

[Abundy]

However, it's interesting to note that the marines used sawed-off shotguns in the south pacific during WWII as banzai stoppers.

The reason that fact is not present in the Miller decision is that the defendants never filed a response to the Government's brief. (They had dissappeared and IIRC, had been killed prior to their appeal being heard)

The fact that the Court found standing for two individuals to perfect the appeal on the basis of a violation of the Second Amendment is a fact lost on the antis. (IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTED A COLLECTIVE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT THE COURT COULD HAVE RULED THAT THE APPELLANTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A RIGHT HAD BEEN VIOLATED.) As is the fact that the Government conceded in it's brief that the right was an individual one. It is amazing how the case has been mis-stated by the antis.