[Atlas Sneezed]

“We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

This worries me. It overturns the notion that arms useful for military service are protected.

[stand watie]

fwiw, you NEED to go READ "Miller". "militia weapons" (weapons of a type & style which are "suitable to defend self, home, state & nation") ARE protected.

otoh, "crudely sawed-off shotguns" are NOT "militia weapons" but rather are "criminal instrumentalities", which are NOT protected by the Constitution.

therefore, the LEFT can kiss an "assault weapons ban" (and MAYBE the "NFA", too ===> "Honey, i want a 1907 Maxim with all the trimmings for Christmas. Can you get one for me???" = rotfLOL!) "bye-bye".

free dixie,sw

[Redbob]

"“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

This worries me. It overturns the notion that arms useful for military service are protected."

Not so at all: this merely says that Miller ONLY addresses the issue of what kinds of weapons are "militia weapons", useful for military service, and that it does NOT require actual service in the militia to qualify to bear them.

Be very careful not to read this decision selectively.