Francis Di Domizio wrote:
Gentle Man wrote:Also, the fact that there were around 14,000 sawed-off shotguns in use by the military at the time of the Miller opinion indicates that guns of the type Miller owned were indeed "in common use by the militia."
As a matter of clarification, are you now equating militias with the military as opposed to free citizens able to stand up to an oppressive government? If not, then your statement does not prove the Miller ruling to be factually incorrect.
No, I never equated the militia with the military. The organized military is only one component of the militia. Despite what Sno just asserted, there's nothing slippery about the definition of the militia. It's clearly defined in federal law.
But speaking of slippery, you reminded me of a point I thought about yesterday. Stevens tries to rely on Miller in his reasoning. He claims, wrongly I may add, that Miller says gun ownership is a right only in connection with some military function, i.e. that only soldiers have a right to bear arms. He oddly thinks this because the Miller opinion said only military-like weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The kicker is that he says, since ordinary people cannot own machine guns (actually, he's wrong), ordinary people have no Second Amendment rights. Of course, he ignores the fact that until just a few years before Miller, ordinary people COULD own machineguns without any restrictions whatsoever. So his argument takes the form of "You have no gun rights because gun rights only apply to military weapons. You cannot have military weapons.... why? Because, damn it, we just passed a law that says you can't." He borrows a though process used in Dred Scott opinion, i.e., "Heck them Negroes don't have no rights because if they did they'd be able to carry gun like the rest of us, and well, we can't have that!" Paraphrasing the opinion just a bit.