A legal question for discussion by our knowledge base… Re: 307 U.S. 174, United States v. Miller, “APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS”, No. 696 Argued: March 30, 1939, Decided: May 15, 1939
{ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html }
In the opinion delivered for this case by the Supreme Court, the following has always caught my attention…
I interpret this to say that any weapon that can be (or has been) considered standard issue equipment would fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment for civilians.
Am I reading this correctly and would it be useful in fighting proposed AWB’s and magazine limitations?
{ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html }
In the opinion delivered for this case by the Supreme Court, the following has always caught my attention…
“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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”
I interpret this to say that any weapon that can be (or has been) considered standard issue equipment would fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment for civilians.
Am I reading this correctly and would it be useful in fighting proposed AWB’s and magazine limitations?