In article <1993Apr16.162447.26289@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes: > In article <1qicep$obf@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: > >In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@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 '34 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 1939.  > >> 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? --