Lurkinanloomin wrote: “This is also 180 degrees around from the Miller decision in the 1930’s that upheld the NFA because the short-barreled shotgun was found to NOT be a military weapon.”
That isn’t what the court said in Miller: “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.”
The court said that the shotgun in question would have been protected if it had “some reasonable relationship” to the militia. The court, in effect, said, no evidence had been presented to that effect and the court couldn’t just assume that it was.
In effect, the 4th circuit is adopting the favorite argument of the gun banners that the 2nd only protects weapons of the militia.
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.
****************************
That is what they are saying, that because it is not ordinary military equipment it therefore can be banned.
The 4th circuit is taking the opposite view and saying that since the AR-15 could be considered a military weapon it can be banned.
You are right that no evidence was presented regarding short barrel shotguns and the military, as the feral government was the only presenter of briefs in this case. Imagine the tortured howls from liberals if an abortion case were to be decided with only anti abortion briefs presented to the court.