And the USSC in 1939 was 100% wrong. There is no language nor is there any implication in the 2nd Amendment that would require the arms that the government cannot infringe upon must be "weapons of war".fredfredunderscorefred said:
Friendly reminder that the USSC in 1939 in US v Miller said the NFA was constitutional specifically because the short barrel shotgun at issue was NOT a weapon of war. Stating specifically that a weapon of war would be guaranteed by the constitution. Not that Dems care about the constitution of course.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/
They also essentially wanted a new case put before them, but Miller died before it could happen and there have been no cases put before them on this since then.
