[robertpaulsen]

"The state had no standing in this case, since the state was not being sued or prosecuted."

State-appointed officers from the state's organized militia could be called to testify whether the weapon was suitable for their state militia. Do you need standing to testify?

That's what we're talking about, you know. Pay attention.

"Mr. Miller had standing to present evidence that his shotgun was a militia-type weapon"

Whatever he says means that the way it is? Golly gosh, I wonder if he'll say his weapon was a militia-type weapon? Gee, what do you think?

Mr. Miller defines for his state what is a militia weapon and what isn't? He makes that decision for the state militia?

Hell, as far as we know, he wasn't even a militia member! Yet he tells the lower court and then the U.S. Supreme Court which weapons are protected from infringement by the second amendment.

You stickin' with that story?

[steve-b]

as far as we know, he wasn't even a militia member

He was under age 18, or over age 45? Or did he perhaps undergo an early experimental sex-change operation?

[steve-b]

Whatever he says means that the way it is? Golly gosh, I wonder if he'll say his weapon was a militia-type weapon? Gee, what do you think?

Let's try this again:

Presumably, the expert witnesses will have different takes on various points, in which case it falls to the court to decide who is more credible.

Admittedly, the repetition may not do you any good -- I don't think that Babelfish has a filter for converting from English to the language spoken on your home planet.

[El Gato]

"Mr. Miller had standing to present evidence that his shotgun was a militia-type weapon"

Whatever he says means that the way it is? Golly gosh, I wonder if he'll say his weapon was a militia-type weapon? Gee, what do you think?

Guessed you missed the "present evidence" part of his statement. Which is something done by one's lawyer on one's behalf.

Hell, as far as we know, he wasn't even a militia member!

Not that it matters, but he was 40 years old when the case was decided by the Supreme Court and thus he was a member of the federal militia, which then as now, was defined as all males 18-45.

I'm sure he was also a member of the militia of Oklahoma, which likely had a different age criteria.

That aside, he was punk and a typical low level gang member of the Dirty Thirties. He'd been involved in a jailbreak where a deputy was killed, but turned state's evidence.

I suspect that fact may have been part of the reason he had that short barreled shotgun in the first place, and also the reason he was dead, shot four times with a .38, before the Supreme Court released the decision.

His co-defendant in the original case, Frank Layton, was no nice guy either, yet after he pleaded guilty the Judge, who had originally refused to accept guilty pleas before the appeal of the dismissal, gave him five years probation, which he successfully served.