Kourt: Cosmetic features can be banned, even if mechanism of action is in common use

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...t-appeals-2a-doesnt-apply-ak-platform-rifles/

If I were in charge, there would be no more negotiating with this rigged system. To the gallows with them all, televised.

‘are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun’ (James, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 677), which Miller concluded (with apparent approval from Heller) was outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.

The Miller case basically said that a shotgun had no military value. Miller presented no evidence of a military using shotguns at trial AND the court did not give judicial notice to the fact that the US military indeed did use shotguns at that time.

These stupid courts are going to start a civil war. Its was something Jefferson warned us about.

davidmcbeth said:

‘are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun’ (James, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 677), which Miller concluded (with apparent approval from Heller) was outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.

The Miller case basically said that a shotgun had no military value. Miller presented no evidence of a military using shotguns at trial AND the court did not give judicial notice to the fact that the US military indeed did use shotguns at that time.

These stupid courts are going to start a civil war. Its was something Jefferson warned us about.

Click to expand...

Miller wasn't even there.....

davidmcbeth said:

................a shotgun had no military value ???. Miller presented no evidence of a military using shotguns at trial AND the court did not give judicial notice to the fact that the US military indeed did use shotguns at that time............

Click to expand...

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/wwiitms/TM9_285_1942.pdf .Shotguns, All Types I carried a twelve in SE Asia and in South Com.

SECTION I. Introduction ..................... 1- 3 2- 9
II. Winchester Shotgun, 12-Gage, M97. 4- 11 10- 37
III. Winchester Shotgun, 12-Gage, M12. 12- 19 38- 58
IV. Stevens. Shotgun, 12-Gage, M620A,
M520, and M620.............. 20- 27 59- 87
V. Ithaca Shotgun, 12-Gage, M37..... 28- 35 88-111
VI. Remington Shotgun, 12-Gage, M10. 36- 43 112-136
VII. Remington Shotgun, 12-Gage, M31. 44- 51 137-160
VIII. Remington Shotgun, 12-Gage, Mll11
and Sportsman ............... 52- 60 161-192
IX. Savage Shotgun, 12-Gage, M720... 61- 69 193-223
X. Stoppages and immediate action.... 70- 74 224-231
XI. Special maintenance ............. 75- 78 232-235
XII. Materiel affected by gas.......... 79- 82 236-238
XIII. Ammunition ................... 83- 98 239-248
XIV. References ..................... 99-100 249-250

INDEX ..................................... 251-257

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12542 shotguns, bayonets, and all kinds of shotgun goodies

As SVG said, the court was rigged. No effort was made to defend and Miller wasn't even present, the verdict was a foregone conclusion.

Luckily, this is irrelevant outside California...and anyone thinking that a CA court would rule differently is overdoing the medical wackyweed.

At some point this will have to go federal.

MSG ,

Miller is a 1939 SCOTUS case... shotguns were new but the US Army had them. Miller court ruled that guns of military value are covered but since Miller (who never filed anything with SCOTUS-he was a pro se litigant) never produced any evidence that armies use shotguns and the court declined to take judicial notice of that fact and ruled the way it did.

davidmcbeth said:

Miller is a 1939 SCOTUS case... shotguns were new but the US Army had them.

Click to expand...

I can't fathom what you mean here. Surely even you know that shotguns weren't new in 1939... :uhoh:

JustaShooter said:

I can't fathom what you mean here. Surely even you know that shotguns weren't new in 1939... :uhoh:

Click to expand...

They were relatively new in military service, compared to other types of small arms ... I know they were not unheard of, SCOTUS did not.

1. I doubt that the California court fully understood what the SCOTUS meant in Heller. I wouldn't worry about this ruling unless the makeup of the Supreme Court changes. The current court would change this ruling.

2. The appeals court demonstrated the same lack of understanding of the 2A that all antis and many ignorant citizens do. The 2A is about the People being able to wrest power back from a tyrant, not just about hunting and self-defense.

sudden valley gunner said:

Miller wasn't even there.....

Click to expand...

Yeah, didn't miller represent himself pro se and he died after the SCOTUS accepted the case but before oral arguments, so the court only heard the government's side of the story.

that should never have happened, the supreme court should've either appointed a competent attorney to represent Miller or dismissed the case.....

EMNofSeattle said:

... that should never have happened, the supreme court should've either appointed a competent attorney to represent Miller or dismissed the case.....

Click to expand...

But, Only if they desired a fair and impartial outcome, which was never the plan.
(Not objecting to your post, just piling on about a bad Supreme Court decision.)

Shotguns were used by Americans in WWI. Shotguns were not new to the US Military in 1939.
I carried a Mossberg 500A and a Remington 870 in Iraq.

decklin said:

Shotguns were used by Americans in WWI. Shotguns were not new to the US Military in 1939.
I carried a Mossberg 500A and a Remington 870 in Iraq.

Click to expand...

In fact, they were used back in the War of Northern Aggression (AKA The Civil War) as well. Seems to me they were muzzle loading shotguns at the time, but shotguns none-the-less.

Fallschirmjäger said:

But, Only if they desired a fair and impartial outcome, which was never the plan.
(Not objecting to your post, just piling on about a bad Supreme Court decision.)

Click to expand...

Not all the Miller case was bad ... they made it clear that they had no evidence that shotguns had military value and that guided their decision. But they should have taken judicial notice ... that's what happens when one believes that guys in robes' votes are needed in respect to to rights...

EMNofSeattle said:

Yeah, didn't miller represent himself pro se and he died after the SCOTUS accepted the case but before oral arguments, so the court only heard the government's side of the story.

that should never have happened, the supreme court should've either appointed a competent attorney to represent Miller or dismissed the case.....

Click to expand...

+1

Fallschirmjäger said:

But, Only if they desired a fair and impartial outcome, which was never the plan.
(Not objecting to your post, just piling on about a bad Supreme Court decision.)

Click to expand...

+1

davidmcbeth said:

Not all the Miller case was bad ... they made it clear that they had no evidence that shotguns had military value and that guided their decision. But they should have taken judicial notice ... that's what happens when one believes that guys in robes' votes are needed in respect to to rights...

Click to expand...

The case was bad, it does have dicta saying the RKBA applies to military weapons which makes the governments current argument that military weapons are not protected by the 2A ironic.

Imagine what would happen if courts dissected abortion or gay rights, the same way.

The key here is to get rid of the politicians that confirm these judges and want these laws.