[robertpaulsen]

"According to who? I don't find that in the text."

That phrase was from US v Miller.

"Except to say the one in the best position to make that determination is the one who has to buy it, provide ammo for it and become proficient with it."

So the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Miller back to the lower court to determine suitability of the weapon for a militia. In order to determine suitability, you're saying the lower court should ask .... Miller himself?

I don't think the Supreme Court would accept that.

[MileHi]

So the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Miller back to the lower court to determine suitability of the weapon for a militia.

No, thet remanded because the decision was "vague" as to how the statute violated the 2A Had Miller been present to argue, they may well have upheld the lower court.

Let's get back to, had Miller argued, describe a weapon that is NOT a suitable militia weapon. So far, you cut on cosmetic issues. I reject that. Are you going to stand on a 17" shotgun being less suitable than a 20" shotgun?

Since you side generally with the crowd who now pushes a "sporting purpose" test these days, this should be good.

[MileHi]

I don't think the Supreme Court would accept that.

Really? So what is the proscribed militia weapon? What would they decide that on? Don't say musket, they are no longer in "common use".

[El Gato]

In order to determine suitability, you're saying the lower court should ask .... Miller himself?

Would have been sort of hard, the buggar was dead by then.