[mvpel]

Sawed off shotguns had been used to great effect ALREADY in WW I. Not to mention bootleggers found them very useful for illicit perposes, when they couldn't get their hands a the sub-machine guns of those days.

So I again state my point that the USSC was unaware of the LEGITIMATE use (or uses) this type of weapon could have. During war, or as home protection, and on and on. They didn't do their homework, whether Miller had an attorney present or not, and they screwed up.

I'd be willing to bet that at the very least one of the Justices who heard the Miller case had personal knowledge of short-barrel shotguns as "trench guns" in WW-I.

The problem is, the US Supreme Court can't hear new evidence, it can only review what's been presented in lower courts. That's why they remanded the case for further proceedings.

[willgolfforfood]

Thanks for that info. Like I said, I’m no lawyer. But now I know why many of those who are can say, “The law is an ass.”

[publiusF27]

So if you notice someone blasting away with a trench gun, and then you later become a SC Justice, it’s not within judicial notice? LOL! Good points re “common” and “unusual” weapons above, btw.

[El Gato]

The problem is, the US Supreme Court can't hear new evidence, it can only review what's been presented in lower courts. That's why they remanded the case for further proceedings.

But they can take judicial notice of commonly known facts (the sun rises in the East). If they choose to do so. In this case they either didn't know or didn't choose to take notice of them.