United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Note that civilian ownership of ‘militia style guns’ are actually protected under the 2n’d Amendment.
>
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Note that civilian ownership of ‘militia style guns’ are actually protected under the 2n’d Amendment.
>
IIRC, he bastardizes the Miller case. The judgment was against the short-barreled shotgun as the judges had ‘surmised’ (pulled out of their asses, or willfully ignorant) such a weapon was not used *militarily* and, thus, COULD be banned/regulated. Never mind that the ‘trench sweeper’ was quite useful during war.
IOW: Because it was NOT a weapon of war, the 2nd did not apply.