# Handguns now legal in DC **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312 "2007-03-09T20:49:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/161 "2007-03-13T01:02:13Z")
Here’s a better list: > **[State defense force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces)** > > In the United States, state defense forces (SDFs) are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government. State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state , , . > State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. All state National Guard personnel (to include the National Guard of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and ... A 2005 Department of Defense report (accessible through the forums below) reported 23 active SDFs; 22 are listed here. ``` * Alabama State Defense Force [1] * Alaska State Defense Force [2] * California State Military Reserve [3] * Georgia State Defense Force [4] * Indiana Guard Reserve [5] * Maryland Defense Force [6] * Massachusetts State Guard [7] * Michigan Volunteer Defense Force [8] (ex Michigan Emergency Volunteers, reformed 2004) * Mississippi State Guard [9] * New Jersey Naval Militia [10] * New Mexico State Defense Force [11] * New York Guard [12] * Ohio Military Reserve [13] * Oregon State Defense Force [14] * Puerto Rico State Guard [15] * South Carolina State Guard [16] * Tennessee State Guard [17] * Texas State Guard [18] * Vermont State Guard [19] * Virginia State Defense Force [20] * Washington State Guard [21] ``` ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/162 "2007-03-13T01:04:33Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] So, the various State Militias are all illegal? [/quote] No, just not the “militia” as the Militia Act of 1903 established. The National Guard _is_ the militia under that law. States can certainly set up their own organizations in addition to their Guard units if they so wish, but there’s no basis other than handwaving for them to have a claim to any special protection under the US Constitution. > [@](#): > > SCOTUS has made no such decision, other than to rule that sawed off shortguns are not legit. Sigh. Okay, what do \*you \* think was the \*basis \* for their ruling that sawed-offs do not have their individual ownership uninfringeably protected? Something to do with their not being militia arms, wasn’t it, hmmm? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/163 "2007-03-13T03:20:42Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Okay, what do \*you \* think was the \*basis \* for their ruling that sawed-offs do not have their individual ownership uninfringeably protected? Something to do with their not being militia arms, wasn’t it, hmmm? :dubious: [/QUOTE] In Miller, the court certainly **could** have ruled that since Miller was not a member of an organized state militia, the second amendment did not protect his right as an individual to keep or bear any arm…such a ruling would be consistent with the collective right line of wishful thought. That the court instead focused on the suitability of the weapon for militia use supports the individual right interpretation. If Miller, as an individual, had been seen as having no second amendment right to keep and bear, then the suitability of a particular arm for militia purposes is moot. It is more than ironic that the only thing the court made clear in this ruling, it got wrong…short barreled shotguns are excellent in close quarters combat and law enforcement situations. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/164 "2007-03-13T04:03:06Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] **SteveMB** gets it, though, and thanks. [/QUOTE] I’m glad to have corrected your erroneous notion that _Miller_ somehow set a “collective rights” precedent. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/165 "2007-03-13T07:23:10Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Yes, **lowbrass** , that was a joke. See the 😃 thingy at the end? [/quote] That’s a “big grin”. It doesn’t necessarily indicate sarcasm or parody. You want the 😉 “wink” for that. One could be pro-gun and still joke that his kind outnumber others. The big grin in and of itself wouldn’t tell me that your post was a parody. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/166 "2007-03-13T13:41:10Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] **Bricker** , it’s certainly odd that what you claim is the “textualist view” requires \*ignoring \* half of the amendment _itself_. :dubious: You know, the half the Court \*did \* pay attention to when making the ruling you poutingly claim doesn’t apply? The part that forms the \*very basis \* for the applicable ruling, as I just pointed out to you earlier? [/QUOTE] I think this is one on which the textualists, original intenters and even many evolutionary people can agree. Even when I was anti-gun ownership I thought it was patently obvious that the second amendment was meant to protect an individual right. And **Bricker** , as for your prediction, I agree that if (a) SCOTUS **does** take the case, then (b) they will uphold the Circuit and (c) they won’t overturn _Miller_. I’m not sure, however, that a Roberts Court is going to take the case, when it isn’t based on a circuit split. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/167 "2007-03-13T14:14:25Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] I’m interpreting “well organized” to read the same as “well regulated”. If this is a stretch then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. [/QUOTE] You’ll also have to agree to disagree with the _Miller_ precedent, which found that the militia clause provides guidance as to **which weapons** fall within the protected category of “arms”, but did not find within the militia clause a limitation on **who** may keep and bear arms. (That is, they found a consitutional doctrine to support the notion that, no, the Second Amendment does not mean you can keep nukes and nervegas in the garage.) If the issue were to arise, I’d guess that the courts would find that the militia clause also provides support for government prohibitions against arms-bearing by persons who are alienated from full participation in the body politic (e.g. convicted felons, the mentally incompetent). However, if you want to effectively abolish civilian firearms ownership, you’re out of luck. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/168 "2007-03-13T18:03:27Z")
[QUOTE=villa] I think this is one on which the textualists, original intenters and even many evolutionary people can agree. Even when I was anti-gun ownership I thought it was patently obvious that the second amendment was meant to protect an individual right. [/QUOTE] Nah. It’s patently obvious that participating in a militia was meant to be protected, not necessarily personal self-defense, recreational shooting, or hunting. The amendments are models of brevity; clauses don’t appear in them for no reason. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/169 "2007-03-13T18:44:00Z")
I only used a small portion of the court cases that show precedent, but rather than make an impossibly long post I’ll just use selected ones. First, let’s look at [US v Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_wright2.txt) > [@](#): > > Because the sawed-off shotguns in Miller were not susceptibleto use in any militia, the Court did not need to determine explicitly what constituted a “well regulated militia.” A careful reading of Miller, however, strongly suggests that only militias actively maintained and trained by the states can satisfy the “well regulated militia” requirement of the Second Amendment. As the Miller Court emphasized, the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “render possible the effectiveness of” the governmental militia described in the Militia Clauses of the Constitution. [footnote 16] Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at > 818. Thus, the Second Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Id. > > At the time of ratification, and as remains the case today, the militia was defined broadly and was understood to include “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 177, 59 S.Ct. at 818. But because the Constitution protects only the possession or use of guns reasonably > related to a “well regulated militia,” membership in this broad segment of the population is constitutionally insignificant. In determining the scope of Second Amendment protection, the Miller Court did not rely on the commonly understood and wide-reaching definition of the militia, but rather turned to early militia laws > of New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, which provided for the training, maintenance, and equipping of these states’ respective militias. Id. 307 U.S. at 177-78, 59 S.Ct. at 818-19. Note in the above, the court found that the all adult males = militia argument was “constitutionally insignificant.” Now let’s look at [US v Haney, US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals](http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-6129.htm) > [@](#): > > The militia of the Second Amendment is a governmental organization: The Constitution elsewhere refers to “the Militia of the several States,” Art. II, § 2, and divides regulatory authority over the militia between the federal and state governments, Art. I, § 8. See also Perpich v. Dep’t of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 345-46 (1990) (describing the “dual enlistment” provisions of the militia statutes). Thus, the militia does not include the private anti-government groups that sometimes refer to themselves as “militias.” Haney is not part of the “well regulated” militia, that is, a “militia actively maintained and trained by the states,” > Wright, 117 F.3d at 1272. At best, Haney claims to be a member of the “unorganized” (and therefore not a “well regulated” state) militia. See Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 44, § 41 (dividing the population of able-bodied persons between the ages of seventeen and seventy into the National Guard, the Oklahoma State Guard, and the “Unorganized Militia”). Haney does not claim to be a member of the National Guard or the Oklahoma State Guard, and he has submitted no evidence that the Oklahoma unorganized militia and his participation therein are well-regulated by the State of Oklahoma. Accord Wright, 117 F.3d at 1274 (“[T]he substantial segment of the population comprising the unorganized militia is not well regulated as that term was intended by the drafters of the Second Amendment.”); see also Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (noting that technical membership in the state militia is insufficient to show a Second Amendment violation); Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020 (same). Nor has Haney submitted any evidence that machineguns of the sort he possessed are used by the militia, or that his possession was connected to any sort of militia service. Again, very clear. The militia is a _government organization._ Let’s look at [U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977)](http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2640.01A) . > [@](#): > > He points out that under Kans. Const. art. VIII, section 1, the state militia includes all “able-bodied male citizens between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years . . ..” He further points out that he is a member of “Posse Comitatus, a militia-type organization registered with the state of Kansas.” > … > To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant’s right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more apparent when applied to appellant’s membership in “Posse Comitatus,” an apparently nongovernmental organization. We conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the second amendment. Once again, the courts reject the argument that being part of the adult male population and theoretical membership in a “militia” gives you Second Amendment protection. This “collective” interpretation is reinforced in [Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.)](http://www.rkba.org/judicial/hickman-block) > [@](#): > > The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “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.” U.S.Const. amend. II. Hickman argues that the Second Amendment requires the states to regulate gun ownership and use in a “reasonable” manner. The question presented at the threshold of Hickman’s appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. This is again reinforced in [Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999)](http://www.aele.org/Gillespie.html) > [@](#): > > The Second Amendment provides that “[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.” U.S. Const. amend. II. The link that the amendment draws between the ability “to keep and bear Arms” and “[a] well regulated Militia” suggests that the right protected is limited, one that inures not to the individual but to the people collectively, its reach extending so far as is necessary to protect their common interest in protection by a militia. With a couple of notable exceptions, the latest being the DC ruling, the courts have uniformly held to the “collective” rights conferred by the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/170 "2007-03-13T22:12:13Z")
[QUOTE=Steve MB] I’m glad to have corrected your erroneous notion that _Miller_ somehow set a “collective rights” precedent. [/QUOTE] You too now? Okay, you can claim that guaranteeing the Guard’s right to be armed is something other than a “collective right”, but once again, so what? Yours isn’t the opinion that counts, and neither is mine. I’m bemused by the number of people here who are religiously sure the SC will reverse \*Miller \* now simply because, well, because it’s just _wrong_, dammit. But not even \*\*Bricker \*\* will apparently offer to bet on _that_ happening. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/171 "2007-03-14T00:26:47Z")
Pistols have been issued to the military. I don’t really see what the Miller decision has to do with the DC ruling. Sawed off shotguns have not been issued as military arms. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/172 "2007-03-14T04:13:00Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] I only used a small portion of the court cases that show precedent, but rather than make an impossibly long post I’ll just use selected ones. . . . With a couple of notable exceptions, the latest being the DC ruling, the courts have uniformly held to the “collective” rights conferred by the Second Amendment. [/QUOTE] I agree. Many federal circuits have more or less explicitly adopted the collective rights argument; the only federal cicuits that have adopted the individual rights argument are DC and the Fifth Circuit (US v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)). But none of these are controlling precedent except in their circuits. I assume this post was not an answer to my earlier request for a cite. I was asking for a cite on your claim that the amendment was created to quell fears that the federal government would disband state militias. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/173 "2007-03-14T04:30:49Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] I’m bemused by the number of people here who are religiously sure the SC will reverse \*Miller \* now simply because, well, because it’s just _wrong_, dammit. But not even \*\*Bricker \*\* will apparently offer to bet on _that_ happening. [/QUOTE] Who, exactly, is religiously sure? Certainly not I. In fact, I stated that I have no idea what the result will be, I’d simply like it to be decided. Actually, definitively decided. In spite of your assertions in this thread, as has been amply demonstrated, _Miller_ did not do so and may potentially be reversed, and even that assumes that you think that the ruling was detrimental to you, which it may not have been due to its ambiguities. For the record, I assess the odds of a ruling in favor of individual rights at 50/50. Imagine that. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/174 "2007-03-14T09:59:42Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I agree. Many federal circuits have more or less explicitly adopted the collective rights argument; the only federal cicuits that have adopted the individual rights argument are DC and the Fifth Circuit (US v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)). But none of these are controlling precedent except in their circuits. I assume this post was not an answer to my earlier request for a cite. I was asking for a cite on your claim that the amendment was created to quell fears that the federal government would disband state militias. [/QUOTE] I’ve got one for that too. Somewhere. It was somewhere in my long list of court cases that affirm the collective interpretation. It takes a while to find since googling for a specific court case often winds up merely finding another case that references it. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/175 "2007-03-14T10:02:43Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] For the record, I assess the odds of a ruling in favor of individual rights at 50/50. Imagine that. [/QUOTE] That’s surprising, given that there is so much precedent for the other interpretation. The SC may be a lot more political than it should be, but they do put a lot of stock in precedence. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/176 "2007-03-14T11:33:05Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] You too now? [/QUOTE] Yes, parsing the actual language instead of simply regurgitating somebody’s interpretation of it has that effect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/177 "2007-03-14T16:48:56Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] That’s surprising, given that there is so much precedent for the other interpretation. The SC may be a lot more political than it should be, but they do put a lot of stock in precedence. [/QUOTE] They put a lot of stock in their own precedent cases – not so much in opinions from below. Indeed, since many cases are granted cert to resolve a conflict in the circuits, it’s almost axiomatic that such a Supreme Court case will trample precedent in at least one circuit below. Here’s my take on how the current Court’s lineup might act on _Parker et al v. DC_: Roberts: affirm Stevens: reverse; collective right only Scalia: affirm Kennedy: affirm; possible concurrence limiting scope Souter: on the fence (dissent in Muscarello v. US) Thomas: affirm Ginsburg: reverse; collective right and DC not covered Breyer: close call, but reverse; collective right Alito: affirm I see four rock-solid affirms; one more reasonably solid affirmance that may end up being a concurrence to lay out a limited scope for the decision (and maybe he’ll end up writing the main decision instead); one true fence-sitter and one fence-sitter that will lean strongly towards reversal, and two solid reversals. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/178 "2007-03-14T19:52:20Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] They put a lot of stock in their own precedent cases – not so much in opinions from below. Indeed, since many cases are granted cert to resolve a conflict in the circuits, it’s almost axiomatic that such a Supreme Court case will trample precedent in at least one circuit below. Here’s my take on how the current Court’s lineup might act on _Parker et al v. DC_: . [/QUOTE] Good call here. But I doubt if they will take the case in the first place. Although I’d bet a buck the ruling would be more or less as you have called it, I’d be willing to bet another they won’t hear it in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/179 "2007-03-15T02:03:25Z")
But doesn’t the precedence in the Miller case revolve around the sawed-off shotgun? A legal weapon that was modified by Miller himself. A gun that was modified by the owner? What does that have to do with pistols in DC? Pistols are issued to the military and the National Guard (however the guard is defined). IMHO, the Miller case has nothing to do with this. Sawed off shotguns were not issued as regular military weapons. Though short barreled 18” trench brooms where and still are. The point of the Miller case deals with sawed off shotguns that were not and are still not arms that are issued to the regular military. It’s not a typical military weapon. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/180 "2007-03-15T13:40:56Z")
[QUOTE=enipla] But doesn’t the precedence in the Miller case revolve around the sawed-off shotgun? A legal weapon that was modified by Miller himself. A gun that was modified by the owner? What does that have to do with pistols in DC? Pistols are issued to the military and the National Guard (however the guard is defined). IMHO, the Miller case has nothing to do with this. Sawed off shotguns were not issued as regular military weapons. Though short barreled 18” trench brooms where and still are. The point of the Miller case deals with sawed off shotguns that were not and are still not arms that are issued to the regular military. It’s not a typical military weapon. [/QUOTE] That’s my read on _Miller_, and it’s a position I’ve held consistently over the years. The court in '39 simply said that it was not within their judicial notice that such weapons were part of ordinary military equipment, and remanded the case. Now the point I keep coming back to is that _Miller_ is bad precedent, as the case was never argued equally by both parties, Miller being dead and Layton copping a plea (IIRC). If Miller’s or Layton’s attorney had been present when _Miller_ was argued, then a case might have been made for the short-barreled shotgun as a piece of ordinary military equipment. Such weapons were used routinely by Dragoons and Cavalry in the 19th century, and their effectiveness in close quarters combat has always been fairly acknowledged by the military. The short-barreled, sawed-off shotgun in Miller’s possession probably has more in common with modern pump-action “trench-brooms,” “door-knockers,” or “House Cleaners” used by SWAT, Special Forces, and regular Infantry deployed in urban areas than the old muzzle-loading musket has with the M-1 Garand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312.md?page=10)