Return to “Summaries of Heller Amici Briefs”
Without context, it's just too little to discern SAF's intent. It was just last night that I got around to reading Respondent's brief (trying to not fall asleep in the tub), so I haven't had a chance to read the other briefs, including this one. I'm not arguing with your conclusion, just pointing out that this short passage doesn't tell us much.frankie_the_yankee wrote:I read it differently.KBCraig wrote:I've only read what you quoted, so I could be all wrong.
Sounds "reasonable" to me.jimlongley wrote:So M2 and full auto WOULD be protected, right? Along with the 20mm that I remember so fondly from my Navy days? No, wait, the 20mm is not in common use any more is it, so a 37mm would just have to do.
I don't believe so. The Miller test is that to be protected, a firearm must be in "common use", and be suitable for militia. I believe they're pointing out that the Court can break free from the "common use" test, and just skip straight to military usefulness.frankie_the_yankee wrote:Quote from the brief filed by the SAF.
Good Grief! Is the SAF saying that "reasonable restrictions" might be constitutional?Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.
