Quote:

---

But miller was saying the only reason the sawed off was illegal was because it was not part of ordinary military equipment. There is another phrase, let me find in that reinforces my beleif.

---

...Which then turned out to be wrong because they were used widely in the trenches of WWI, which poses a problem for interpreting Miller over time.

I think this court is saying that reading Miller to mean the equipment has to be of the type standardly used in the military would bring machine guns back into standard availability (of which they don't seem to like the idea). Alternatively, saying it only applies to stuff that can be used for defense of self and home would allow for short barreled shot guns, which these Supremes may actually think is OK.

For example, they say "But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty." This clearly states that they read the second amendment to mean that militia service entailed bringing whatever lawful weapon you could supply for yourself to your milita service. What constitutes "lawful" is itself a separate matter, leaving open the doorway to some restrictions.

They go on to say that the original purpose of the militia is obviated by modern arms. That sentiment suggests either the people may not privately own tanks or it may suggest that the court acknowledges people simply cannot afford to own them (in sufficient quantity) for militias to do as intended at the time of the framing. However, they go on to say that regardless of the fact that militias outfitted with commonly legal arms (those being used for defense of self and home) can not stand up against modern armies of nations, that is irrelevent to protecting the right to keep and bear arms as they have described it.

In short, they're saying that militias of able bodied men (adults) with weapons they may lawfully posess (for the purposes of defending self and home) will probably get trounced in war versus a national army (whether you take the permission view or the economic view) but, even so, the people's right to have such arms remains in a protected right. This is my understanding of the ratio decidendi, and it suggests to me that laws about things like cheap hand guns and short barreled shot guns and other clearly nonsensical are in danger of being declared unconstitutional but laws in place covering destructive devices will remain in force.

--------------------


Cervidae beware

Post Extras