kkennett,kkennett said:. . . but they leave Miller as the controlling case.
I originally replied to you in the U.S. v. Parker thread, but I decided this was too much information not directly related to the Parker case, so I moved my reply here.
I don't really have a problem with Miller. I have a problem with the way it is misinterpreted, but not the text of the original opinion itself. All it really said is that in the absence of any evidence the justices were not going to just assume that a short barreled shotgun was any part of the ordinary military equipment. As a result, it held that there was no basis to reverse a conviction on possessing a short barrelled shotgun without having paid the $200 tax.
The opinion said of people showing up for militia duty: "ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
M-4 or a SAW, anyone?
There is a lot good that could come from Miller, if people did not make such an effort to twist it.
Read it for yourself.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=174
The only real issue I have with it is the cite to the Tennessee case, Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158, which is interpreting a state consitutional provision that protected the right to keep and bear arms only for "the common defence." As the Court itself states later in the opinion, "Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed."