if you take this to the next level a "common use" law could preclude
the introduction of any new cartridge or even any new weapon using an
existing cartridge.
This
is why it is necessary for those knowledgeable about "arms" to develop
an acceptable taxonomy to help the courts in determining what
There was no evidence in Miller that the firearm was "sawed-off." The
indictment simply refers to a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches
in length. Short-barrel shotguns were common before the NFA and could
be purchased at hardware stores. NOTE: common.
I had, at the time of the 1968 amne
Raymond writes:
> The military in WWI used, and today still uses, short-barreled shotguns,
"trench brooms", etc.
> but they were not sawed-off.
I think that barrel length is the important metric, and that
"sawed-off" is a general term meaning the barrel was shortened after
manufacture. S
You are right, but a great deal of public policy has been based in racism,
sexism, ignorance and lack of concern for constitutional rights. Billions
have been wasted on policies that were allegedly based on common sense and
life experience. Yes, it is hard to have reliable evidence on many public
The military in WWI used, and today still uses, short-barreled shotguns, but
they were not sawed-off. I'm not sure if this makes a difference for 2nd
Amend theory, but it's a fact.
Ray
From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf
C. D. Tavares wrote:
No, what [the Supreme Court in Miller]
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 pr
On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Raymond Kessler wrote:
Further, Heller seems to be limited to "weapons in common
use." .50 cal. Rifles are not in common use.
I wonder why I don't see more discussion of the elephant in this
particular room -- viz., Miller requires "common use" to protect a
ty
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 evi
