- Aug 22, 2015
- Reaction score
- 38°29′ North 121°26′ West
It's notable that the Miller ruling was factually in error, in using this premise as a basis for their ruling.The ruling specifically stipulated that a sawed off shotgun could be banned "BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE".
No one was there to argue for Miller's case, so they only heard the state's side of the argument. Had someone competent been there to argue Miller's side, then it surely would have been pointed out to the court that at the time, short-barreled shotguns, similar to what Miller was in trouble for possessing, were, in fact, a standard issue item in our Army. They were colloquially known as “Trench Sweepers”.
I think that there's a very good chance that a competent attorney arguing for Miller's side would have been able to persuade the court away from the premise that it was only military-suitable weapons that were covered by the Second Amendment.