[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Perhaps you can tell me where you got that notion, because I have no idea what you're talking about. "

Of course you don't.

Acccording to the Supreme Court, Miller and Layton could be prosecuted IF and ONLY IF the short-barreled shotgun was found to be useful to a militia. This decision was independent of the nature of any other weapon controlled by NFA 34.

Let's assume for a moment that a jury decided that the short-barreled shotgun WAS NOT useful to a militia and that Miller and Layton are convicted. Does that mean the law is Constitutional or unConstitutional? Obviously, if the defendants are convicted using the guidance supplied by the Supreme Court, then the law is, by definition, Constitutional.

Let's then assume for a moment that the jury decided that the short-barreled shotgun IS useful to a militia and Miller and Layton are acquitted. Obviously, then, the prosecution of Miller and Layton was unConstitutional. Does that bar prosecution of somebody else accused of having a weapon which is not useful to a miliitia? Absolutely NOT.

Obviously, then, we have a law which is unConstitutional under some circumstances and Constitutional under other circumstances. Is this so really hard to follow?

Now imagine that the Supreme Court had ruled that the nature of the arms was irrelevant but that protection of the Second Amendment barred prosecution of members of a "well-regulated Militia". Prosecution of the law in the case of militia members would be unConstitutional and prosecution of all others would be Constitutional.

The passage of a law by Congress is not an infringement of a person's right to keep and bear arms. It is the enforcement of the law which infringes. It is that enforcement that the Court controls. The Court has no say on what legislation can be passed by Congress and the Court has no power to "un-pass" legislation.

[robertpaulsen]

"Let's assume for a moment that a jury decided that the short-barreled shotgun WAS NOT useful to a militia and that Miller and Layton are convicted. Does that mean the law is Constitutional or unConstitutional?"

It means the law, as it relates to shotguns having a barrel less than 18 inches long, is constitutional. It says nothing, one way or the other, about any other weapons or devices listed in the NFA.

"Obviously, then, we have a law which is unConstitutional under some circumstances and Constitutional under other circumstances. Is this so really hard to follow?"

Uh-huh. For the reason I gave.