United States v. Miller
Yes!!!!!!!!
The NFA is so ridiculous it’s painful to debate people on it.
The older Botkin has a great video on YouTube about it and suppressors. Completely dismantles the whole thing.
The Miller case is interesting. They upheld a ban on sawed off shotguns because such weapons were not of military use....ie they could not be used by a militia.
So guns that are of military use like AR-15s and the like cannot be banned under that logic....right? Those would be useful to a militia. Thus any bans on them or large cap magazines must be stuck down. That’s the inverse of the Miller decision but it is consistent with the logic. Of course the gun grabbers would have kittens if the court were to issue a ruling stating that.
Miller forbids the state from what the state has done since. Subsequent courts, in cluding scalia in the Heller case, have mis-stated what Miller says.
Miller says the state may not restrict the public from weapons used by the military.
No. The decision simply needs to actually be read.
Here's a direct quote from it: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
What this means was that the U.S. government committed a lie of omission. The court was not told that sawed-off shotguns were extensively used during WWI, in trench warfare in Europe. If it had, the court would have declared that sawed-off shotguns are absolutely protected under the 2nd amendment.
Here's a link to the entirety of the decision, and all available relevant documents... U.S. vs Miller