One of the few good things that came out of Miller, was the court’s declaring that they had no evidence before them that showed a short barreled shotgun was of any use to a militia, therefore his possession of one was not protected by the Second Amendment. That implied that the things that were protected by the Second Amendment were things of use to a militia.
Courts have had a history of tying themselves into knots in order to reach an opinion that they wanted to reach from the get go, but I think it would be difficult for even the Ninth Circus to reach a conclusion that a 30 round mag wasn’t useful to a militia.
There’s an aversion to arguing it because they’re afraid of how the media will portray it– and them — and you gotta wonder how many actually believe in it anyway.
If it’s enough of a threat to Our Rulers that they want it banned, they are forbidden to do so by the Second Amendment.
And if they refuse to recognize that, they are the exact threat to the security of our free State that justifies our exercising our right.
One of the few good things that came out of Miller, was the court’s declaring that they had no evidence before them that showed a short barreled shotgun was of any use to a militia, therefore his possession of one was not protected by the Second Amendment. That implied that the things that were protected by the Second Amendment were things of use to a militia.
Courts have had a history of tying themselves into knots in order to reach an opinion that they wanted to reach from the get go, but I think it would be difficult for even the Ninth Circus to reach a conclusion that a 30 round mag wasn’t useful to a militia.
Yeah, except did you see a militia argument being made?
It’s not like the lawyers don’t know.
It’s not like they couldn’t have included it.
There’s an aversion to arguing it because they’re afraid of how the media will portray it– and them — and you gotta wonder how many actually believe in it anyway.