Bear with me, this could be long since I'm citing what a lawyer said.
Sanford Levinson, a UTexas gun-grabbing anti-gun law professor, wrote an article entitled The Embarrassing Second Amendment. It's well worth the read (see link). In it, Levinson talks about US v Miller, a case decided in 1939. The interesting part is on pages 18 and 19 of the linked article. It says:
Returning, though, to the question of Congress' power to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms, one notes that there is, basically, only one modern case that discusses the issue,
United States v. Miller, decided in1939. Jack Miller was charged with moving a sawed-off shotgun in inter-state commerce in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Among other things, Miller and a compatriot had not registered the firearm, as required by the Act. The court below had dismissed the charge, accepting Miller's argument that the Act violated the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court reversed unanimously, with the arch-conservative Justice McReynolds writing the opinion. Interestingly enough, he emphasized that there was no evidence showing that a sawed-off shotgun "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." And, "[c]ertainly is is not within judicial notice that the weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Miller might have had a tenable argument had he been able to show that he was keeping or bearing a weapon that clearly had a military use.
Justice McReynolds went on to describe the purpose of the Second Amendment as "assur[ing] the continuation and render[ing] possible the effectiveness of [the Militia]. He contrasted the Militia with troops of a standing army, which the Constitution indeed forbade the states to keep without the explicit consent of Congress. "The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia-civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."
McReynolds noted further that "the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators [all] how plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
It is difficult to read Miller as rendering the Second Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically, Miller can be read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments, e.g., that the individual citizen has the right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons. Arguments about the constitutional legitimacy of a prohibition by Congress of private ownership of handguns or, what is much more likely, assault rifles, might turn on the usefullness of such guns in military settings.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7254&context=ylj
The interesting part of this article and the ruling by Justice McReynolds is that US v Miller was decided against Miller because a "sawed-off shotgun" was not a part of military use. What? In WWI, (before this case was decided) US soldiers used the Model 97 Winchester shotgun in trench warfare. It was so effective the Germans actually filed a war crimes complaint against the United States use of it. Ironic, since the Germans were using gas on our troops.
We also saw where shotguns were used in Vietnam in the jungles. Perhaps they have been used in other wars since.
t.me
www.foxnews.com
www.thegatewaypundit.com
