This statement is simply, factually untrue. The Supreme Court has rarely looked at the Second Amendment. The last time was Miller in 1939.
Miller got busted for having a banned sawed-off shotgun. By the time the case got to the Supreme Court, his side wasn't even represented and didn't make an argument.
Here's a quote from the FindLaw posting:
Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.
The Supreme Court in Miller, tied gun regulations to the type of weapons used by the military and logically then, by a militia. It received no evidence that sawed off shotguns had military use.
The Supreme Court in 1939 was unaware of the use of 'Trench Guns' on the front in WWI. Troops did use sawed-off shotguns, when they made it to enemy trenches. A shot gun is a long gun, which is difficult to manage in the tight confines of a trench. In close quarters combat in a trench, accuracy wasn't much of an issue, but handling, speed and agility sure were.
The liberals love Miller, saying 'yeah, we can ban certain guns'. But logically, under Miller, you could wander around with your M-16 and AK-47 fully automatic, because those guns are without a doubt militia weapons. So, how would have the Supreme Court ruled in Miller, if at the time, they had had evidence on the use of sawed-off shotguns as a military weapon in just the previous war?
The fact of the matter is, that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment is not an indivdual right, but is a collective right. Not once.
‘Trench Guns’ on the front in WWI. Troops did use sawed-off shotguns, when they made it to enemy trenches. A shot gun is a long gun, which is difficult to manage in the tight confines of a trench. In close quarters combat in a trench, accuracy wasn’t much of an issue, but handling, speed and agility sure were.
I didn’t know that. Is that the origin of the sawed off shotgun?
Technically, he was charged with transporting it across state lines without a tax stamp and registration. Had he registered it and purchased a tax stamp, it would have been legal to own.
"The Supreme Court in 1939 was unaware of the use of 'Trench Guns' on the front in WWI."
Those were 20" pump action guns with a barrel shroud, sling swivels, and bayonet mount. Miller had a sawed-off double barreled shotgun, less than 18".
"The fact of the matter is, that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment is not an indivdual right, but is a collective right. Not once."
They never addressed the issue of a collective right or an individual right. They were silent.