Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #102917  by Owen
 
I read his complaint. He uses logic and actual court cases in support. Awesome! :applause:

Interesting: in one case the court said a sawed off shotgun was not used by the military so it was not protected. If you reverse that then if it is used by the military then it is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Now wouldn't that be interesting. Full auto and suppressors legal federally because they are commonly used by the military.

EDIT: Found it! United States vs Miller. Gov won but here is their argument anti-sawed off shotgun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller, I know wiki so grain of salt may be required.;) )
The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.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.
 #102918  by DragonJames
 
Wiki actually has it pretty spot on. They got away with that argument because Miller had died by that point and there was no point (in his mind) for the attorney to counter.

As much as both arguments look like slam dunks, i know the olyimpic mental gymnastics team will be on this one hard to argue against every point