I'm not trying to argue the Miller decision at all, but one question I have always had is where in the Second or the whole Constitution itself is there anything that gives the government the right to determine that a shotgun with an 17.99" barrel has less "lawful purpose" than my "lawful" Mossberg with the 18" barrel. I'm not a great firearms expert, so maybe there is something I don't get about the "silly millimeter" difference that changes the usage and function so drastically as to make them "unlawful".
And if the gov't can make a 17.99" barrel "unlawful", then they can make an 18" or anything else unlawful.
I guess I'm a real strict constructionist, as I cannot even comprehend how someone cannot understand the simple 27 words of the Second.
I guess, from your comment, that you tend to agree with me on some of that. Like any of us peon's opinions matter... ;^)
Exactly - and, what Miller ignored, is that a sawed-off shotgun is BOTH a military weapon (”Trench broom”), very common in war, AND a highly-effective (and SAFE) means of home defense.
The 17.99 argument is a discussion for another thread - because it is wrong. EG, the VASC ruled a breathalizer is not evidence of impairment, for DWI purposes.