despite the LIES told by the media & the LEFT, "Miller" protects the right to be ARMED with "Militia Weapons".
otoh, "crudely sawed-off 16 guage shotguns" are NOT militia weapons (according to Miller, those weapons which are "suitable for defense of self, home, state & nation".), but "rather criminal instrumentalities, suitable to rob a liquor store".
thus a M-16, M-14, M-4, pump/automatic shotgun, 9mm pistol, .45 ACP pistol and other similar "police & military" type weapons), etc are MILITIA WEAPONS, the ownership/use of which are PROTECTED by the BOR!!
free dixie,sw
I like Scalias thoughts here when he basically says that everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, “The Peoples Rights” equates to individual rights and therefore the argument that “Except for #2” is bogus.
Obviously nobody wrote the Bill of Rights for militias, police, and armies.
Reading the opinion is a bit tedious but well worth it..
AA-12 Full auto 12GA. Particularly useful in a “militia capacity” to clear large numbers of Zombies, er... enemies, at close combat range.
I realize you didn't direct this question to me, but I'll answer anyway. :-)
Why yes, I have. At my website, you'll find the most complete treatment of U.S. v. Miller on the net. It includes more applicable documents than you can shake a stick at.
otoh, "crudely sawed-off 16 guage shotguns" are NOT militia weapons (according to Miller, those weapons which are "suitable for defense of self, home, state & nation".), but "rather criminal instrumentalities, suitable to rob a liquor store"."
While the quotes you mentioned aren't actually in Miller, the essense of them are what Scalia was speaking to. The only reason that sawed-off shotguns were not considered by the court to be "militia weapons", was because they weren't informed of the utility of such weapons in the trenches of France during (the somewhat recently concluded at the time) WWI. In fact, their use in battle was so common they had a vernacular name assigned to them of "trench gun". The reason the court wasn't told about this was because neither Miller, nor his attorney showed up in court because Miller was dead, and as such had more pressing concerns.
As I stated in an earlier post, the most glaring omission in all of this is the complete absence of the phrase "letters of marque and reprisal", which only makes sense if private citizens have the right as free men to own cannon, warships, andother non-common instruments of war.