It appears to me that Light Blunderbusses on account of the quantity of shot they will carry, will be preferable to Carbines, for Dragoons, as the Carbines only carry a single ball especially in case of close action.What was that Miller decision again?
Oh, yeah:
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.
U.S. v. Hollis Wayne Fincher
ReplyDeleteTrial Transcript, pp. 437-439
-437-
Q. Now, why did you pick the short barrel shotgun?
A. Because it’s a very effective arm. It doesn’t need the
extra barrel length, or a lot of times, even the shoulder stock
on it. It’s a very high fire power. You can be reloaded over
and over and over again from your pocket. It doesn’t have a
magazine to lose or drop or wear out. This particular one has
rifle sites on it. It’s been ported to help keep the recoil
down. Militia are not always first line soldiers. Some of
them, if you get about forty, your eyesight begins to
deteriorate.
You can’t -- you couldn’t -- a lot of them couldn’t hit a
barrel a ways off, but with that shotgun, you put them back into
service, a cook or a truck driver or someone guarding a checkpoint,
someone protecting a VIP, important person inside a
building. You can regulate the ammo, from bird shot to slug,
Flechette and sabot. You can shoot teargas, pepper spray in it,
-438-
flares. You can use it for line throwing.
That particular shotgun there was used to shoot the -- by
electric company, isolating limbs. They’d lay down on the wire
and sort them out so you could take a shotgun and shoot up into
them and it knocks the ice loose and the limbs loose. They lift
up. The rural electric organization uses it. And so it’s a
very versatile arm.
It’s just ideal for a lot of positions in the military for
people that don’t need a full-sized battle rifle to carry.
People that’s driving a vehicle, emergency vehicle, that need a
compact sidearm, or it can have a shoulder strap on it to where
it can be hung and you can use other utensils. It’s just an
absolute ideal. Police use them and the military has used them.
Flechette slug rings would probably be crowding a quarter mile
effective range with a slug or a sabot. It would be derelict to
say that that’s not a proper arm for part of the militia.
It would just be absolutely negligence on my part to start
trying to sort out and pick arms that could contribute to the
common defense of this country or this state. Guns -- a person
that’s not well-versed in guns can take that gun there at a
short range and do a very good job of defending themselves or
someone else.
A situation like Katrina down there where the dykes have
broke, and if you have to get your family out of town there, you
-439-
could take that shotgun and take your supplies and your children
and go through dangerous neighborhoods. It would be plenty of
gun. You can tailor the loads to where you don’t kill somebody
half a mile away with it. You can use it right inside a
building without ricochet slugs a’flying around because you can
put some shot in it.
You can tailor your loads to your specific need and change
them just in a moment. It’s an extremely proper arm for a
militia to have. Not everyone in the militia needs one, but
they are very proper to own and have them. It would be derelict
to turn down an arm like that for a people that needed to be
armed. It would be -- there would be absolutely no justification
to say this gun can’t go out on the field. Anyone that did
that would probably be subject to court-martial later on.
Q. Did you do training with the short barrel shotguns?
A. Yes, we used them.
Q. And there’s porting on those --
A. Yes.
Q. -- barrels? Why is that done?
A. As the projectile goes down the bore and the port is
exposed to gasses, they -- they rise up and keep the barrel down
for repeat fire power and controllability. That’s standard
knowledge throughout the arms industry. It’s -- it’s done
extensively, even on sporting guns.
Oh yeah, that's right — he makes us all look bad. Besides, he doesn't know what he's talking about anyway. Right?
I'd take a Shotgun over anything else, anyday. Truly an almost perfect weapon for EVERY situation.
ReplyDeleteMiller had disappeared, either dead or in hiding, by the time the case hit SCOTUS. Without a defendant there was no lawyer to argue that side of the case. With only US representation is it any wonder that the decision was a bit one-sided?
ReplyDeleteYes, any decent defense would have called up testemony from WWI vets to demonstrate the effectivity of short shotguns as trench weapons. Ala justice Kennedy, perhaps Miller is deficient. Truer words were nevere spoken.
On this day in history - in 1971 - I popped out of my mother. BWAHAHAHA!
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that's a hint to buy you a Big Kids Meal or just make me feel old. I was in college then.
ReplyDeleteHappy Birthday, young 'un.
You're both youngsters.
ReplyDelete"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."-Miller
No surprise here except that the Court willingly exposed their complete ignorance of a subject upon which they sat in judgment.
That's what I want a bunch of uninformed boobs whose only qualification for sitting in judgment on issues is their unjustified belief in their intellectual, historical, and moral superiority. It is so much easier to reach a decision that way if one doesn't confine himself to fact, truth and knowledge.
Whoopgoddamnee
The Silver Bullet
ReplyDeletepg. 12
Published by the MoWCA
The Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision for lack of evidence of Militia or Military utility of the short barreled shotgun carried by Miller. Miller had been found dead of gunshot wounds, and neither Miller, Layton, nor their counsel appeared before the Supreme Court with evidence that was, in fact, readily available. The Court stated, “… 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 the 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 ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Aymette v State, 2 Humphreys {Tenn.} 154, 158.
The Supreme Court did not accept the federal government’s unfounded contention that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right to “Arms,” belonging to the States, as it recognized Miller and Layton’s standing to challenge the National Firearms Act’s validity. It was merely the failure to present readily available evidence of Militia utility of the short barreled shotgun, the short barreled rifle, the machine-gun and the silenced Arms that allowed the unconstitutional National Firearms Act to stand.
Once again, evidence is readily available. All the research has been done.
Just what is it we are fighting for?
I'm sorry, I thought for just an instant that U.S. citizens were intelligent.
One of these days a Russian or Chinese soldier is going to take the TV and shove it up America's collective you-know-what.
Then Americans can figure out what happened to their liberty.
Even without the presentation of evidence by Miller, the court erred in not realizing the well known common fact of the utility of the instrument in question.
ReplyDeleteFor the reasoning to stand because the evidence wasn't presented to them pro forma would indicate that we could and should seat justices to the court who have no grounding in law, history, or thought. In other words they should be blank slates subject to the persuasions of the best debaters.
Or we could insist on honor, intellect, and dedication to the constitution. Gee, ya think?