Why the 2nd Amendment may no longer be revelent to the Federal Government

[BjornF16]

Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939) upheld a conviction against a Mr. Miller (a civilian) who owned/possessed a short barreled shotgun. The rationale for upholding the conviction (under the National Firearms Act of 1934) was that the Court had no knowledge of the militia or military of needing a short barreled shotgun, and therefore it could be regulated.

U.S. v Miller -The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

US v Miller basically validated the Courts opinion in Presser v Illinois (1886) regarding the definition of the "militia" in 2A, and actually remanded the case back to the lower courts to see if there was any evidence that a short barreled shotgun contributed to the "efficiency of a well regulated militia" (or "in common use at the time"). The lower courts could find no such evidence and upheld the conviction.

I'm not sure why we don't hear more of US v Miller as precedence. According to this ruling, ANY weapon that contributes to the "efficiency" of a well regulated militia (or National Guard, or military organization), should be LEGALLY owned by a citizen.

source: http://guncite.com/miller.html