United States v. Miller

>>31767965
SHALL

>>31768111
NOT

nice trips btw

>>31768111
But the right of Americans to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia was supported by the attorneys representing the US.

So no short barrel shotguns, derringers, or anything that would be dumb to use in war. But that also implies that completely deregulated civilian ownership of giggle switches.

File: 1438205886910.jpg (129KB, 960x936px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 960x936px

>>31768123
BE

>>31768154
Well, there's no reason for these questions to be addressed at the federal level.

Of course DC is going to want different firearm laws than Wyoming.

Let them.

>>31768162
INFRINGED

File: 1311729682100.jpg (626KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 1024x683px

>>31768154
>so no short barrel shotguns
>dumb to use in war

>>31768178
Ask the long dead attorneys what they meant by this. I see a place for them in clearing rooms, but apparently they were grasping at straws.

>>31768188
Well, basically everything NFA is now a current, widespread issued weapon for the US military and with the exception of some of the heavy artillery also the US police forces both state and federal.
>suppressors
>SBR's
>SBS's
>select fire
>destructive devices
>AOW's

>>31768188
>but apparently they were grasping at straws
No, they were banking on the general stupidity and give-a-shit attitude of the US population, considering SBS's have been in continuous military service since the Spanish-American War and continuous police service since 1776.

>>31768154
>no short barrel shotguns or derringers
I would happily give up those things for full giggle, rocket launchers, and tanks.

File: harold 12.jpg (801KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 1500x1000px

>>31768220
My state representative is definitely going to hear about my inability to be an effective part of a well-regulated militia now.

>>31767965

Here is a TL:DR version I wrote to someone in Croatia explaining it:

This brings us to Jack Miller and Frank Layton, who were bank robbers and moonshiners who also happened to carry out their trade with a sawn-off double-barrel shotgun. The Federal government prosecuted them under the
National Firearms Act for possessing the shotgun without the $200 tax stamp. Their lawyers argued that the NFA was not about revenue but about restricting the Second Amendment rights of their clients. The Federal
Judge agreed that the NFA was unconstitutional, but it was appealed to the
Supreme Court. BTW, by that time Miller had died and none of the original lawyers from the original trial were present to argue the case.

So what the Supreme Court did was remand (sent it back) it back to the Federal District Court in Arkansas, and explained that while the Second Amendment did indeed allow the right to keep and bear military arms in the context of a militia, the sawn-off shotgun was not a military weapon and therefore the NFA could be applied to it and other non-military weaponry.

This became known as the Miller Decision (U.S. vs Miller in 1939). Basically anti-gun advocates say "Yay! 'Miller' says the government can restrict firearms ownership" while pro-gun advocates say "Yay! 'Miller" says we can own military-grade firearms". This has been the only Supreme Court case in the last century to directly address any Second Amendment issues. But it did so peripherally and poorly.

(Wrote this before Heller vs DC)

>>31768807
>Basically anti-gun advocates say "Yay! 'Miller' says the government can restrict firearms ownership" while pro-gun advocates say "Yay! 'Miller" says we can own military-grade firearms"

If the latter is true, why would the former be happy about that decision at all?

>>31769052

Note the word "Basically" which means dumbing it the fuck down for a Slav who has never known the Second Amendment,

It meant if anyone wanted to own military-grade weaponry (read: Machine guns) they had to use the NFA.

Libs were always claiming stare decises on RKBA because of the Miller decision--thats why they are happy about it.

>>31769095
But the NFA didn't ban any machine gun manufactured after 1986, did it?

File: rf.jpg (150KB, 432x444px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 432x444px

>>31769255

The TL:DR of the Miller Decision is that the Supreme Court ruled the NFA is Constitutional, thats the bottom line liberals love.

Hughes Amendment not related, nor to my knowledge has anyone successfully sued to get it overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns

>>31768154
>So no short barrel shotguns, derringers, or anything that would be dumb to use in war.
nigga, literally any gun could have some conceivable use in warfare.

>>31769255
No, the Hughes Amendment did.

>>31769765

Yep, while I point out Four Justices were WWI vets, only one, Hugo Black, actually served in a combat role (artillery).

Not veering two far off the original subject, but it was not uncommon for both sides to use sawn-off double-barreld shotguns in the trenches. But the Winchester 1897 was considered a WMD by the German Empire and threatened to execute any soldier captured with one.

>>31769095
>Libs were always claiming stare decises on RKBA because of the Miller decision--thats why they are happy about it.

I've also run into one who very adamantly argued that Miller found that any ownership at all was only protected for those who could claim militia (in his argument specifically "well regulated", in the sense of being regulated by the government not the original meaning of the term) membership.

I spent like two days trying to explain to them that wasn't what Miller was about.

I've also had to explain why the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act wasn't the legislative version of the fuckin Holocaust.

But I supposed that's what I get for hanging around a super left leaning forum (for reasons other than dealing with the very left leaning political echo chamber).