[Pirogue Captain]

"That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right."



Total BULL! Miller said no such thing. Miller said (paraphrasing) that short-barreled shotguns were not commonly used by the military, hence were not weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment. It certainly did not maintain that the RKBA is a collective right.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmie.html


"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. (Emphasis added.) 307 U.S. at 178."



And even that was wrong. Short-barreld shotguns had been in use.

[chiya]

And by the time Miller was heard by the court, Miller was dead and the anti side was the only side that was heard. Miller was never defended.



The Homeland Support Team

[bvw]

WWI Trench Sweepers. You'll also see them in old cowboy movies used as by lawmen or stagecoach drivers.

[supercat]

Total BULL! Miller said no such thing. Miller said (paraphrasing) that short-barreled shotguns were not commonly used by the military, hence were not weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment. It certainly did not maintain that the RKBA is a collective right.

Actually, even that's not right. The court merely allowed the government to bring Miller/Layton to trial to determine, among other things, whether a shotgun was a militarily-useful weapon. Even though Layton was still alive, the government decided to plea bargain for time served rather than go to court to prove its case. Is there any other case where the government, after "winning", has offered a plea-bargain for time served?

[infowarrior]

And even that was wrong. Short-barreld shotguns had been in use.

They certainly were in use during WWI, in the trenches. It was directly after WWI that all the beeligerents, and many other countries as well, developed various versions of "the submachinegun", or "machine pistol", which provided the the benifits that a sawed-off shotgun provided in WWI, to wit, massive, man portable firepower, in a package that could be employed in close confines (like the trenches of WWI). In short, the sawed-off-shotgun was the original "room broom" (and still makes an acceptable substitute for a subgun today...)

the infowarrior

[absolootezer0]

wasn't there a prosecuter in that case that was a vet that would have seen them in use?

[BCR #226]

You are correct in post 20.

The lawyer for the government stated that "shotgun serial number XXXXX was never in use by the military and thus does not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment."

Unfortunately, there was no opposing side to argue the point since it is believed that Miller had died by that point.

However, if you read the entire Miller case, it does affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms of "modern military nature". Hence, the 1986 MG ban is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment according to the Miller decision. Unfortunately, because of the poor wording of the decision, the anti's try to use it and it is misrepresented quite often.

Mike

[Atlas Sneezed]

Total BULL! Miller said no such thing. Miller said (paraphrasing) that short-barreled shotguns were not commonly used by the military, hence were not weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment. It certainly did not maintain that the RKBA is a collective right.

---

Miller is consistent with the proposition that there is an individual right to bear arms of any type useful for military purposes.