|
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 |
| Location | Statement | | Holding 1.(f) | United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e. those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. | | Holding 2. | Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. | | P. 22 | In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” | | Pp. 49-54 | A discussion of Justice Steven's analysis of Miller and others. | | P. 55 | Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” |
|
Common Use
Written by USCitizen on 2008-07-02 19:37:17
Re: Miller (and a less than 18") shotgun not in "common use":
How do recent events rank with the law? To wit: The US Border Patrol issuing RFI's for approximately 4,000 16" Remington 870's.
Does 'Miller's shotgun' now become 'common use' if the Government is procuring them?
What was not common in 1934 may be becoming common today, i.e., no longer "unusual".
| Written by admin on 2008-07-03 00:39:54
What about NFA? If a firearm was common in 1933 but became rare because of an otherwise unconstitutional law, should it be legal now?
And without NFA, I bet a short barrel shotgun would be more popular than handguns for home defense. |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
