The following is a thread I started, however I was referred to this thread when mine was closed for being similar. I do see some similarity, so I am
reposting it, and I apologize that it is slightly off topic, not trying to derail anything (the OP asked why we need them, not if we have a right to
So I guess my first answer to the OP is that the Supreme Court says not only that we can have them, but that we should, and that when a militia is
summoned we are expected to show up with our own weapons. Of course, this is just one reason. Another would be that hold an AK just makes me look so
From other thread:
Supreme Court says military weapons protected under 2nd
I know, my timing is horrible on this one, but I have been meaning to make this post for a while now, before the bandwagon anti-constitutionalists
decided to re-victimize the families of those who died at Virginia Tech. by using the horror of their loved ones deaths to score points in what is to
them just a political game. For my horrible timing, I apologize.
I want to bring up the fact that, although no-one talks about it much, the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that individual citizens have the right to
carry modern military grade weapons.
In THE ONLY 2ND AMENDMENT CASE THE COURT HAS HEARD, US v. Miller, the S.C. decided that Miller, who had transported a “sawed off” shotgun across
state lines in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act, would have to have to defend himself in a lower federal court because his weapon had no
military usefulness. Had his lawyer known that “sawed off” shotguns (wiki on trench
) were used in WWI, it is probable that Miller would not have been remanded back to the lower court.
The court also stated that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right and responsibility of all men of military age.
wiki on Miller case
On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in
any militia organization.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court
declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.
I would like to hear from anyone who has reason to think that, in light of the Miller case, we do not have a legal right to own any weapon of military
usefulness we desire in the US.
Shortened the quoted text.
[edit on 21-4-2007 by chissler]