Snidely70431
Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2018
- Messages
- 420
From Miler:
"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."
In this finding, the SCOTUS justified upholding the NFA 1934 on the basis that sort-barreled shotguns were NOT military firearms, and thus not protected by the 2d Amendment. Never mind that such shotguns had been used in WWI in the trenches, but that is besides the point for this discussion.
It is fashionable for the Left to attack civilian possession of "black rifles" and high-capacity magazines as "weapons of war", when to sole basis for justifying the NFA 1934 in Miller was on the basis that short shotguns were NOT "weapons of war".
So far as I know, SCOTUS has not taken up any challenge the NFA 1934, or to any of the subsequent bans on full-automatic firearms, on the basis that such firearms ARE weapons of war, and thus protected by the 2d Amendment.
I would be interested in reading what others know about this subject.
"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."
In this finding, the SCOTUS justified upholding the NFA 1934 on the basis that sort-barreled shotguns were NOT military firearms, and thus not protected by the 2d Amendment. Never mind that such shotguns had been used in WWI in the trenches, but that is besides the point for this discussion.
It is fashionable for the Left to attack civilian possession of "black rifles" and high-capacity magazines as "weapons of war", when to sole basis for justifying the NFA 1934 in Miller was on the basis that short shotguns were NOT "weapons of war".
So far as I know, SCOTUS has not taken up any challenge the NFA 1934, or to any of the subsequent bans on full-automatic firearms, on the basis that such firearms ARE weapons of war, and thus protected by the 2d Amendment.
I would be interested in reading what others know about this subject.
