[Hunble]

In the U.S. versus Miller interpretation , the court ruled that Miller was in violation because his sawed-off shutgun was not a military weapon.

If anything, this interpretation was validation that every citizen is a member of the militia. Our duties as members of the militia is to keep military weapons for the protection of a free state. Other weapons are not protected.

Is this why many States are trying to ban military weapons and only allow those with no other purpose other than for hunting or target practice?

Next step is to declare all non-military weapons in violation of the US vs Miller verdict.

For this reason, my wife and I only own military style weapons.

[jdege]

Actually, in US v. Miller, it was ruled that since the defense had presented no evidence, the issue should be sent back to the district court.

Miller and his accomplice might very well have presented evidence that the shotgun bore a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a militia, which would have led to the district judge tossing the conviction yet again.

But Miller was dead, and the Feds, terrified of having their precedent overthrown, let Miller's accomplice go free.