The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second
Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. 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.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
I'm not trying to argue the Miller decision at all, but one question I have always had is where in the Second or the whole Constitution itself is there anything that gives the government the right to determine that a shotgun with an 17.99" barrel has less "lawful purpose" than my "lawful" Mossberg with the 18" barrel. I'm not a great firearms expert, so maybe there is something I don't get about the "silly millimeter" difference that changes the usage and function so drastically as to make them "unlawful".
And if the gov't can make a 17.99" barrel "unlawful", then they can make an 18" or anything else unlawful.
I guess I'm a real strict constructionist, as I cannot even comprehend how someone cannot understand the simple 27 words of the Second.
I guess, from your comment, that you tend to agree with me on some of that. Like any of us peon's opinions matter... ;^)