Nah, to many on the Court that oath they took to defend the Constitution meant nothing. Thankfully, there is honor, even among politicians, lawyers and judges. Just not much.
Aaarghh! I can't take it anymore! This is the second time in as many months that I have read a PRO-GUN writer repeating this lie about U.S v. Miller. The whole country must be going illiterate, thanks to our pathetic public schools. It's bad enough that the gun-grabbers spread lies which rob us of our 2nd Amendment rights; it's really pathetic when our side believes and repeats them!
In U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court HELD that the 2nd Amendment gives an individual the right to own any firearm that could reasonably be used in his presumed role as a member of the militia, i.e. any firearm which could reasonably be used for military purposes. The court REMANDED the case to the lower court for a factual finding on whether the sawed-off shotgun in question met this test. Though in its DICTA the court said it was not aware of such a use for sawed-off shotguns, it left this finding of fact to the lower court. Had the case ever been reheard in the lower court, or for that matter if either of the plaintiffs had been present at the Supreme Court hearing or had legal representation there, the fact would certainly have come out that indeed short-barreled shotguns were used in WWI in trench warfare--sufficient evidence to meet the criteria which the Supreme Court had established for upholding the plaintiffs' 2nd Amendment right to own these guns.
The case was never reheard in the lower court, as one of the plaintiffs (Miller) had died a month before the Supreme Court hearing and the other (Layton) subsequently accepted a plea bargain under he which he received a probation-only sentence.
Please 2A troops, go forth and stamp out the dangerous myth that U.S. v. Miller went against us. We can't afford to have OUR side spouting this, just when the courts are starting to turn back towards an honest reading of the 2nd Amendment.