Alphecca

More on DC Gun Suit

I received an interesting email from Seth V.:

Regarding your post on the lawsuit challenging the DC gun ban. As you must know, the case which is always cited to say "they only meant a militia" is U.S. v. Miller (I don't have the number in front of me right now, but if you go to findlaw.com and search miller you'll get a list, pick the one marked 1939).

However, if you actually read Miller you will see that what the court was doing was sending the case back to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the particular weapon in question was the type of military equipment which might be used by a militia. The case was moot by then, as both men had been released, Miller was later found dead and this partner was never found, so the case went no further.

So as far as I can see the court was saying the people have the right to arm themselves with weapons but there is no protection for sporting arms (which to me makes the various assault weapons bans and sporting use tests unconstitutional).

The only way to decide there is no right to keep and bear arms is to stop reading Miller at the bottom of the first page (it's only 4 pages of text and 3 of footnotes). The interpretation that Miller only gives a militia right was determined in 1944 by a case called Tott, which I haven't yet read, which cited Miller and apparently did read only the first page of Miller.