>
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Note that civilian ownership of ‘militia style guns’ are actually protected under the 2n’d Amendment.
>
IIRC, he bastardizes the Miller case. The judgment was against the short-barreled shotgun as the judges had ‘surmised’ (pulled out of their asses, or willfully ignorant) such a weapon was not used *militarily* and, thus, COULD be banned/regulated. Never mind that the ‘trench sweeper’ was quite useful during war.
IOW: Because it was NOT a weapon of war, the 2nd did not apply.
but here again- the constitution makes no mention of the fact that only military guns can be allowed by civilian use- the second amendment simply states that we have th right to bear arms- where in the world did the judge in the miller case get the idea that only military guns are allowed? IF that was his opinion, then he should be fine with people owning fully automatic weapons, tanks, bazookas etc- (Which i believe people should be able to own since the government owns them, and the3 intent of the 2n’d A is for the people to be as armed as th military is-