delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,229
Saw this article saying what I’ve thought about Scalias opinion in the DC heller case.
His wording was so clever that is being used in direct opposition to previous thinking as pertains to “useful to the military”‘weapons. Wasn’t the case and reasoning in the Miller, that sawed off shotguns were not protected, because it wasn’t used that much in the military?
And the reference to long standing did seem like he and the folks who signed the majority wanted to protect the Nfa and subsequent 68 and 86 laws.
Just food for thought here.
https://www.firearmsnews.com/editor...es-military-weapons-ownership-citizens/389220
His wording was so clever that is being used in direct opposition to previous thinking as pertains to “useful to the military”‘weapons. Wasn’t the case and reasoning in the Miller, that sawed off shotguns were not protected, because it wasn’t used that much in the military?
And the reference to long standing did seem like he and the folks who signed the majority wanted to protect the Nfa and subsequent 68 and 86 laws.
Just food for thought here.
https://www.firearmsnews.com/editor...es-military-weapons-ownership-citizens/389220
Last edited: