What America would look like if it didn't change their Amendments

[jmg257]

18. What I stated, just like the USSC did, is quite clear...exactly WHY it went against Miller...

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2019, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

The Miller decision states that the 2nd protects arms with reasonable military use, in order to assure the effectiveness of the militia entities.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

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

Period. Pretty simple to see just what they did say, and no dancing is needed - its all about the inadequate weapon.. the ownership/possession by a citizen of an arm..."this weapon", a "shotgun..." of "such an instrument", "its use", not proved to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia - is/was not protected by the 2nd.


You sound like someone who is trying to prove a point using only a small part of a decision in support, while ignoring the rather obvious point stated in another part.

We do get the 2nd is militia related - states it right in the preamble.