ok, so in us v miller 1939, scotus declared
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizens the right to keep and bear such weapons."
this sounds to me like they were saying, "well, we don't see that a short barrel shotgun has any military use. so we don't see GCA 1934 as unconstitutional" yet later ammendments and further bans SPECIFICALLY refer to millitary weapons (from other countries) as banned, not to mention US millitary weapons.
we don't need sporting, we need someone to get scotus to re-open us v miller 1939, so they can declare GCA 1934 and all of its ammendments unconstitutional
What the court should have asked is, "is a short barreled shotgun and 'arm'?" The answer being an obvious "yes", is therefore protected. Also, if the Miller decision establishes a test of suitability for "militia" use, then why are full auto firearms so heavily "infringed" upon?
They didn't even rule that all of the GCA was constitutional, they addressed the short barreled shotgun portion. Even then they really just sent the issue back to the lower court, which took no evidence or testimony on the issue, bur just threw out the case as violative of the second amendment, which the law clearly is. One principal, (not Miller) had plea bargained to a lessor charge, and the other (Miller) was dead. Thus there were no "further proceedings" which the Supreme Court had ordered on the issue and the case. If there had been, the defense could have called an Army ordnance type to testify that short barreled, and short overall, shotguns have a long military and militia history. Shotguns, although not short barreled ones, are current military issue and are in use in Iraq and Afghanistan