[Waco]

When gov't attorneys are before the S.C. is the court supposed to be naive? The attys. "neglected" to mention that shotguns were a military weapon. Didn't the court members already know these facts? Of course they did! This smells to high heaven.

[hoosierham]

Quite possibly the LAWYERS on the Supreme Court have no idea shotguns were used in the military;there is also a ridiculous judicial/legal tradition of ignoring all facts not presented in a case even if the parties and judges know those facts.

[Abundy]

If you are talking about Miller, the defendant's/appellants skipped town - their side of the case was never briefed. If you actually read the Gov's comments in Miller, it conceeded that a weapon with military usefulness was covered by the Second Amendment - something you never hear the anti's say.

Had their side been briefed, the Court would have had trouble, since sawed-off shotguns were used to clear trenches in WWI and used in WWII as well.

[wcbtinman]

RE:post 11

One of the members of the USSC in the Miller case, years later, acknowledged that he had in fact used a "trench sweeper" (a sawed off shotgun) in Europe in WWI. During the Miller trial he was very much aware of the utility of short shotguns, yet never disclosed this to the other members of the court. Go figure.

I still don't know why the length of any "arm" makes one whit of difference, since the Constitution makes no such distinction at all. Arms are Arms are Arms.