[E Rocc]

Ultimately, we need a case that challenges Miller, which was argued and decided with only one side testifying. There was no national gun rights defense group then. It didn't seem necessary.

-Eric

[ctdonath2]

That will come promptly after [i]Parker[/i].

[paratrooper82]

United States v Emerson, (fifth cir. 2004)

[NY.SS-Bar9]

What most people don't understand, is that, in Miller the USSC ruled that the firearm in question was not suitable for military use. The understanding being that if a firearm was suitable for military use, it was protected under the second amendment.

The firearm in question was a sawed off shotgun, also known as a "trench gun" in the military.

A proper defense was never presented.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Ultimately, we need a case that challenges Miller

---

Miller says only that machine guns may be taxed. Parker is narrowly drafted so that it has no effect on the 1934 tax. However, Parker provides the basis for overturning the 1986 Machine Gun Ban, which is more troublesome than a mere $200 tax.

[Redbob]

"Ultimately, we need a case that challenges Miller,..."

What do you have against MIller?

All Miller says is that only "militia" weapons are protected, and a good case could be made (should have been made) that almost any weapon could be a "militia" weapon.

[El Gato]

Ultimately, we need a case that challenges Miller, which was argued and decided with only one side testifying

I'd put it a bit differently. We need a case that completes Miller. The basic ruling in Miller was that short barreled shotguns could be taxed, and effectively banned, unless evidence was produced showing they had usefulness in a military/militia context. They do of course, as do machine guns, "sniper rifles"(including the big .50 BMG version), semiautomatic handguns, true battle rifles and real assault rifles.

Never mind other interesting sorts of arms.