[Cboldt]

-- "Miller" is bull$hit. --

The Miller case is okay. What's a crock is the way it has been applied, again, for the OPPOSITE of what it stands for. Courts get away with this, because not many people read the precedents and find out the courts rationale is bogus. That is, the courts lie about the law.

The SCOTUS remanded the case to the court below, with (coded in legalese) instructions to obtain evidence. If the evidence showed a sawed off shotgun had a militia use, or was useful for the common defense, then the dismissal of the charge was to be reinstated, and the 1934 NFA (tax on firearms) was to again be held an unconstitutional infringement of the RKBA.

[Durus]

No, the Miller case was BS. The court went out of it's way to not make a real decision when the decision they should have made was blindingly obvious. It held that if a short barreled shotgun couldn't be found to have use in military service, it was perfectly legal to ban machine guns (which obviously were in military service). What is (or was) in use by the military has no bearing on the operative phrase of the 2nd amendment, which the court knew and ignored in order to perpetuate the power of government.

It has since been watered down further by the "common use" idiocy of Scalia who is supposed to be "conservative". There is no logic to the arguement that "Machine guns aren't in common use, so it's ok to keep them banned even though they are only banned by unconstitutional means".