--bumpersticker
This statement presumably refers to Miller and is untrue. Miller said that allowable firearms had to have a reasonable relation to military use. In other words, military firearms are more protected than now military. Miller had to do with a sawed-off shotgun. No evidence was presented that sawed-off shotguns had a military use, because Miller was NOT represented in his case. As it turns out, sawed-off shotguns were used 20 years previously in WWI for trench warfare.
You might think that the Congress-critters would like to see the reduced crime that concealed carry would achieve. If you thought that, you would be wrong. STREET CRIME DOES NOT AFFECT THE WASHINGTON POWER ELITE. When was the last time you heard of an official being mugged in DC? Congress-critters and senior Administration officials have armed bodyguards. No street-thug in DC in his right mind is going to hassle a white middle-class-looking person in the capital area, because he knows what kind of wrath he's going to bring down if his target turns out to be somebody with power, or a plainclothes federal law-enforcement agent
The elite in Washington, NYC, and LA are not afraid of street crime, and don't care much about street thugs having guns. What they ARE afraid of is another Mark David Chapman (assassin of John Lennon) or John Hinkley (the guy who shot Reagan) -- quiet, middle-class white guys who might suddenly snap and take an extreme dislike to them. Hinckley and Chapman demonstrated that you can be a celebrity with all the bodyguards you want, and it won't make a damn bit of difference if someone is obsessed with taking you out and doesn't care about what happens to himself afterwards
"Wailing and gnashing of teeth" doesn't begin to describe it - try "hysterical shrieking, self-righteous posturing, and Viewing With Alarm." Hillary Clinton will burble "Republicans want your babies to die" and Sarah Brady's undergarments will have more knots than a three-masted schooner.
It's hard to overemphasize the threat that "change course" represents to antigun extremists, whose strategy is incrementalism. They have been scrambling to explain away the inconvenient fact that proliferation of "shall-issue" laws has not resulted in the predicted bloodbath. Nor is the mainstream press happy with the situation. Expect a hysterical reaction to the next public shooting, coming soon to a network near you. I'd guess sometime in the next month or so - the antigunners are getting anxious.
Wrong. What US v Miller stated was that the weapon itself had to have a military use. It was quite clear that they considered everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 de facto members of the militia.
Miller in fact affirmed that posession of arms was an individual right. Anyone who claims otherwise is not reading the case. Miller was convicted of bearing a sawed off shotgun and carrying it across a state line. The Supreme court overturned his conviction and remanded the case back to the court in order that the lower court could determine whether or not a sawed off shotgun had a military use. Since he died before he could get a new trial, that question was never answered.
Any cursory analysis would indeed show that "trench guns" were commonly used in the military. Thus, Miller's conviction would have to have been set aside after such a determination.