- Joined
- Nov 23, 2012
- Messages
- 77,874
- Likes
- 115,712
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
I was incorrect, he did not use the term assault weapons, but he did support the ban on "dangerous and unusual weapons."
I'm not sure if you ever do any reading, but there was a book written some time back called "Unintended Consequences" that kind of dug into the Miller Case. And the author made a fair point that it might have been gone the other way as well as making the NFA 1934 null and void had it been argued at the SCOTUS level.
The remainder of the book leaves a lot to be desired IMO, but the historical portions are eye opening.
ETA: By argued, I mean the legal counsel actually showing up and arguing against the US's case.
Last edited:
