Fine. Then without a showing that the weapon was not useful to a militia, the jury would be obligated to ACQUIT without regard to any militia membership.
You persist in your mistaken notion that a law which is unConstitutional under SOME circumstances is therefor unConstitutional under ALL circumstances. That is totally false. Perhaps you could justify this stance.
If the Miller Court had decided that only persons who are militia members are protected by the Second Amendment, then the law could be applied to Miller and Layton.
You will please note that the Miller case addressed ONLY the possession of a short-barreled shotgun. EVEN UNDER MILLER, if the shotgun had been found to be protected, the law would still be enforceable with regard to other weapons.
You are forced to persist in this error because otherwise you would have to admit that the Miller decision is an individual rights decision.
Or, to put it another way, without a showing that the weapon was useful to a militia, the jury would be obligated to CONVICT without regard to any militia membership.
"You persist in your mistaken notion that a law which is unConstitutional under SOME circumstances is therefor unConstitutional under ALL circumstances. That is totally false. Perhaps you could justify this stance."
Perhaps you can tell me where you got that notion, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
"If the Miller Court had decided that only persons who are militia members are protected by the Second Amendment, then the law could be applied to Miller and Layton."
Where are you coming up with these hypotheticals? The Miller court said nothing about Militia membership.
"You will please note that the Miller case addressed ONLY the possession of a short-barreled shotgun."
Well, a particular short-barreled shotgun, yes.
"EVEN UNDER MILLER, if the shotgun had been found to be protected, the law would still be enforceable with regard to other weapons."
Under Miller, other non-Militia-type weapons, yes.