What I'd like to point out is a quote by the judge...
United States v. Miller held that sawed-off shotguns were not protected because there was no evidence that they were useful for military purposes.32 The obvious corollary was that weapons that could be useful for military purposes would be protected by the Second Amendment. It would be a mistake to think Heller and Miller are inconsistent.
This is the most clear reading I have ever seen in a legal opinion of the Miller decision. Almost everyone misses the point of the whole "absent any evidence" bit of the Miller decision. What it basically means, is that if the court had been informed that sawed off shotguns had been used during WWI in trench warfare, the decision would absolutely have gone the other way.
Almost everyone misses this.
God Bless This Judge
“God Bless This Judge”
This judge has an amazing grasp on the 2nd Amendment and the history of past rulings. I wish other judges were as well informed.