Replies

You appear to be pretty educated on the SCOTUS rulings. I have a question related to U.S. v. Miller (1939). Since the basis of that ruling (regarding sawed-off shotguns) against the plaintiff appeared to be that "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense", that is, it is not strictly speaking a "militia" type weapon -- then is that a basis for the states restricting certain types of pistols?

I guess my question boils down to this - if a weapon is not in current military use, nor has it historically been used by the military, and does not appear to be useful in "contributing to the common defense" -- then apparently the SCOTUS permits it to be regulated or banned by the states. Is this correct?

Essentially, the Court took the position that the militia clause provided guidance on the definition of the term "arms", and concluded that it meant "weapons of a type typically wielded by individual soldiers".

The best way I can answer your question is this: sometimes.

Various courts rule in various manners. Some are clearly stacked with leftists and rule accordingly. Others have some common sense and an ability to read the Constitution (along with the thoughts of the framers etc..) and rule accordingly.

Quite often US vs Miller is cited as nothing more than a means to approve of gun control measures - since the ruling did not favor an unimpeded right to bear arms.

I view this as a clear warning that we've a lot of work to do.