re some more about gun control in article apr beaver cs washington edu graham cs washington edu stephen graham writes in article qicep obf transfer stratus com cdt sw stratus com c d tavares writes in article apr beaver cs washington edu graham cs washington edu stephen graham writes re is john q public with a gun protected it s worth noting that us vs miller sustained miller s conviction of possession of an illegal firearm noting that a sawed off shotgun was not a proper militia weapon no they noted that no one had claimed that it was a proper militia weapon despite having been used in at least two wars this was true since neither miller nor his lawyer appeared before the court did they or did they not sustain miller s conviction i don t have the text of the case handy miller was convicted of owning a sawed off shotgun and not paying the nfa tax snatches of the court s decision the second amendment was intended to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such a force the militia it must be interpreted and applied with that end in view the militia includes all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense however regarding sawed off shotguns 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 judicial notice is the term of art here it meant that no such evidence had been formally presented this is different from claiming that they had ruled that it wasn t yes shotguns had been used in wwi the spanish american war and the us civil war that was not in question the possession of a sawed off shotgun was i e a weapon altered to improve concealibility i m not talking about plain shotguns in war i m talking about short barrelled sawed off shotguns in war compare revolutionary war blunderbusses luparas in the spanish american war and trench cleaners in ww i they were also put to good use by us soldiers in ww ii not to mention being invaluable to tunnel rats in vietnam but of course miller took place in therefore us vs miller supports limited government regulation of firearms don t go arguing down this road unless you are willing to abide by the consequences that you find at the end of it mainly that the law abiding common man has a right to own any weapon that has a militia purpose from handguns to sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons that in fact is what this decision says you are free to produce evidence that i m not willing to abide with all the implications of this here is my quandary you seem to be arguing that certain types of guns fall outside the scope of the second this isn t a useful argument unless you believe that some significant gun or class of gun belongs in that class i think we both agree that zip guns probably aren t protected maybe we also both agree that all the weapons that random state governments have been banning or trying to ban because they have no sporting purpose and no provate citizen would ever need these guns do fall under the protection of the second so given that damn near any gun of any practical utility is or has at some time been used by the military even if only for marksmanship training purposes i need to understand why you are intent on pressing this point arguing that that something is not protected by the second just because i don t whole heartedly endorse the nra position does not mean that i oppose the rkba this attitude is what makes the nra unpopular often what makes someone unpopular is what other people say about him how much did any of us fear or abhor the branch davidians six months ago how many of us feared or abhorred saddam hussein five years ago cdt rocket sw stratus com if you believe that i speak for my company or cdt vos stratus com write today for my special investors packet
