[Orangedog]

--obviously, they have never even read Miller in its entirety-

If I recall correctly, I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in Miller that the private ownership of the gun in question (a sawed-off shotgun) was not protected by the 2nd amendment because it was not considered to be suited for use by a militia. I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but I seem to remember that part of the decision. If that is the case, then wouldn't the ban on so-called assault weapons would not be allowed under Miller?

[rellimpank]

Yes. That has even been pointed out by some liberal observers. The fact of the matter, is that the original premis of Miller-that short barrelled shotguns have no use by the "militia" is false--short barrelled weapons firing multiple projectiles have been used in every war since the invention of firearms--the justices of the Supreme Court must have been unaware of the usage of "trench guns" in WW 1--

[coloradan]

No, it was "not within judicial notice" that such a weapon is associated with preservation of a well-regulated militia.

The reason it was not within notice, is because the defense didn't show up for the trial, and so it was (lying sack of S**t) government revenue agents, vs. nobody.

[AFreeBird]

If that is the case, then wouldn't the ban on so-called assault weapons would not be allowed under Miller?

B I N G O !!