[William Tell]

BCR #226 said: You are correct but if you read the Miller case, the wording suggests that the basis of the individual right to the 2nd Amendment is based on "weapons of the type of military service."

Yes, and I think that this aspect of Miller is entirely wrong for the reason I stated.

What would be interesting to know is what the "remand" in Miller actually did. This would appear to be a direction to the court of initial jurisdiction to try the case rather than dismiss on Second Amendment grounds.

Then it would appear that the prosecution, not the defense, would have the burden of proving that one element of the crime, that is possessing a weapon that is NOT of use to the Militia, had been committed. I don't see how the burden could fall on the defense.

[BCR #226]

That's an excellent point. The onus of proof is supposed to be on the accuser not the defendant. Can this possibly be reviewed by the USSC again since that the decision is somewhat confusing to some and for the reason that the defense had no representation?

Mike