[dcwusmc]

"My guess is that Mr. Miller's sawed-off shotgun had none of the above military-type features and would have been virtually worthless in a combat situation."

Your guess would be quite wrong then. It would not be my primary weapon, but my preferred backup in close quarters would be a double-barreled 12 ga. about 15-17" bbl length and maybe 24" overall. Besides the actual effect of the shot on an enemy, the psychological aspects are enormous.

"The National Firearms Act of 1934 took the position that if a shotgun had a barrel less than 18", it was probably going to be carried concealed by criminals."

The NFA took the position that they could TAX ownership and possession out of existence where they could not lawfully out and out prohibit. That is what NFA '34 was about. NO ONE would pay $200.00 to transfer a $5.00 short barreled shotgun, so it was defacto banning. Same with machine guns. Except that a FEW were registered, maybe 100,000 out of well over a million in private hands at the time, most of which were war souvenirs.

Oh, and your trench gun, nice as it is, would be too hard to swing around in really crowded quarters. That's why a "sawed-off" 12 ga. is so valuable.

[robertpaulsen]

"but my preferred backup in close quarters would be a double-barreled 12 ga."

Use whatever you want. But if you want the second amendment to protect your right to use it, then, according to the Miller court, it must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

The argument is not, and has never been, about what type of weapon can be used in combat. The argument is what "arms" the second amendment protects. If you're going to reference Miller in your arguments, then you'll have to accept their criteria, whether you agree with it or not.