Reply #14: Well, lets use US v. Miller as a starting point [View All]

[Boomer 50]

"Arms in common military use." has been thrown around quite a bit. In US v. Miller 1939, the USSC established (incorrectly) that the shortbarreled shotgun in possession by Miller was "not in common use by the military" even though in all truthfulness, short barreled shotguns were quite common during WW1 and have been used in every major and most minor conflicts since. So, using the Miller decision as a basis, the arms refered to by the Founding Fathers in the 2nd Amendment would be military arms. Today, that would include such weapons as the M16 series of rifles, machine guns such as the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, various classes of destructive devices, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, suppressors (silencers) and various classes of weapons that do not fall under any other heading (AOW). Knives and other implements would also be covered as they are in common use by not only the United States military but every military in the world.

Further evidence to this end would be the oft-repeated mantra of todays paramilitary police. "We need (insert whatever firearm here) so we won't be outgunned on the streets from criminals." The police are fast moving towards select fire rifles, submachine guns and other guns the anti-gun zealots want banned. If law enforcement feels a dire need to arm themselves with these types of arms, then ALL Americans should take a hard look at the reasons why and consider emulating the police for their own protection and the protection of our communities.

No matter how one feels about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, common sense must apply when we look at times of muster. The men were expected to present themselves armed with their own firearms and outfitted for combat. Today, this would include ballistic vests, helmets, other proper gear to allow the citizen soldier to effectively participate in any armed conflict. Something that isn't really discussed much when relating to the extent of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

One classification that has been debated over and over is crew served weapons such as cannon or tanks. These probably should be included for the effective defense against a comperablely armed enemy. History has shown that many cannon and warships were privately owned and used in defense of the nation on more than one occasion. Does this apply today? I believe so.