On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Charles Curley wrote:
I believe that the Miller case (1939?) stands for the proposition that
the weapons best protected by the 2nd Amdt are those that lead to the
preservation and efficacy of the militia. If I recall correctly, the
Court held that, as they had no evidence that a sawed off shotgun did
lead to the preservation and efficacy of the militia, it wasn't so
protected.
No, what they ruled was that because they had no evidence that a sawed-
off shotgun contributed to the preservation and efficacy of the
militia, it was the job of the subsidiary judge to stop throwing the
case out of court on first principles, and proceed to hold an actual
trial at which such evidence could be presented and weighed. That
trial was never held, because Miller had since died. The Miller
decision never actually declared ANY identifiable firearm as
unprotected.
--
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty
Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch
http://libertyhavenranch.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
