[jeffersondem]

“In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

But an M-16 does.

[brianr10]

Yes, that’s an internal contradiction in the argument for gun control. They have tried to use this excuse to ban handguns and tasers because they have no military purpose, thus not covered by the second amendment. I can envision the following argument: we can ban semi auto firearms as not covered by the 2nd because they have less military utility in the function of a militia than full auto firearms, which are already banned. They will use any convoluted circular reasoning they can.

[PapaBear3625]

“In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

The Supreme Court ruled that way, because they were presented with only one side

US vs Miller

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.

[budj]

I believe that one of the justices commented, after the decision, that it probably would have been different if the attorneys had noted that the sawed off shotgun was used in WWI as a trench gun.

[DBrow]

“In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

And logically one can say that Miller says that 2A protects the right of civilians to own militarily appropriate firearms.