How much before and why would the Miller court want to go back that far? And how much shorter?
And do you mean, "the military used" or "some guys in the military took it upon themselves to use"?
"the military preferred the shorter barrels for the same reason the police continue to do so"
The Miller court didn't mention police. Let's leave them out.
"since evidence of the Navy buying 17" barreled, Mossberg M500A1 shotguns has been posted to you before."
Gee, with advances in technology, maybe the NFA can be changed from 18" to 17". But since the Mossberg M500A1 shotgun was not available for the Miller court to consider, what's the relevence?
"It can be mounted under an M-4/M-16"
Ditto the LSS. Why are you even bringing these up? You're wasting my time.
Again? Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
Short enough to be easily deployed on horseback. Maybe 20 or 30 years before "Miller", although since the Army still had horse calvary at the time of the Miller decision, they may also have still had some of those shorter shotguns, especially in National Guard (i.e. Militia) units, but that is supposition. Supposition that could have been substantiated in the "further proceedings" that the Supreme Court ordered, but which were never held, Miller being dead and all.
Ditto the LSS. Why are you even bringing these up? You're wasting my time.
No you are wasting our time being deliberately obtuse. At least I think it's deliberate.
The relevance is that the Miller court did not rule that military/militia effectiveness did not stop at 18" of barrel length, but rather that *in the absence of evidence* of such effectiveness, they and they lower court could not say that keeping and bearing such a weapon was protected by the second amendment.
If a modern day court went by the Miller rule, and given the evidence that it is "part of the ordinary military equipment", they would have to rule that the LSS, even with it's 7.5 inch barrel , keeping and bearing one *is* protected by the second amendment.
The Miller court didn't mention police. Let's leave them out
Why? The militia was not just a military unit, but could be called out to aid the civil authorities as well. In fact that is the first function listed under the militia powers of Congress, in Art. I Section 8 "to provide for calling forth the Militia to enforce the Laws of the Union". If the federal police need such weapons for that purpose, why would the militia not need them? Short barreled shotguns are often referred to as "riot guns", since the second function mentioned for the Militia is "to suppress insurrections" and a riot is a sort of insurrection, the Militia would need such weapons as ordinary used by police.
You can't expect the Miller court to have fully explored the nature of weapons needed by the militia, when only the government was represented at the Court and their interest was in seeing the NFA upheld, not keeping in place the protection of the right of the people to keep and bear arms appropriate to Militia requirements.