[wcbtinman]

How do you feel about the manner in which the Miller case is cited throughout the decision?

The way I read this, if an individual can demonstrate that a particular type of weapon has a military utility (I'm thinking of a machine gun here), then the govt may not infringe the right to keep and bear that weapon.

Thoughts?

[freedomcrusader]

I'm glad you brought it up. After skimming the opinion, I was thinking the exact same thing. I'd love to see the Assualt Weapons ban die on the basis of Miller and this decision...

[hchutch]

It might, but only in terms of small arms. The "crowd pleasers" are not going to be covered.

But pretty much any small arm (pistol, rifle, shotgun, or machine gun) will be legal to have. The machine guns might have some tighter controls, but in general, the Brady Bunch lost a heck of a lot more than we did.

They may be able to pull something out of the Supreme Court, but between now and then, Bellesiles could be thoroughly discredited. That's only going to help our side in the arguments.

The only question is if Sarah Brady and the others will make the same screw-up that Robert E. Lee did and order a frontal assault - a political-legal Pickett's Charge.

I'm no lawyer, though. But we have a pretty big win here. We've got the high ground.

[sailor4321]

That's the way I've always read Miller and I fail to understand how anyone could read it differently.

[lepton]

The way I read this, if an individual can demonstrate that a particular type of weapon has a military utility (I'm thinking of a machine gun here), then the govt may not infringe the right to keep and bear that weapon.

That is very clearly what Miller implies: That sawed-off shotguns were able to be regulated because they were insufficiently military in nature.