[William Tell]

ought-six said: "Recall that the Miller decision held that a sawed-off shotgun was not usual to military use, and thus was not a weapon protected under the Second Amendment."

The Supreme Court did NOT decide that the shotgun was not useful. Such a determination would require fact-finding which is more properly a function of the lower court. That is why they reversed and REMANDED the case.

[ought-six]

In Miller SCOTUS held that a sawed-off shotgun was not a usual military arm, and thus was not a weapon protected under the Second Amendment. The defendants in the original case apparently did not even offer up any kind of legal defense vis-à-vis SCOTUS.

A shotgun has use as a military arm, but not — per SCOTUS in Miller — a sawed-off shotgun.

In the instant case the Fourth Circuit has held the dozens of common semi-auto firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, and thus arguably that decision is in conflict with Miller.