Actually in that previous ruling the SCOTUS said the 2A only protects military arms and as no military used short barreled shotguns they weren't protected.
Well, the military uses SBSs, SBRs and suppressors now so they should be protected.
Actually in that previous ruling the SCOTUS said the 2A only protects military arms
False.
blue account kike account Awful, kike-quality English.
Quote the ruling and where it said what you claim it does. The last true SCOTUS ruling on guns was 2008.
Are you fucking brain dead? United States v. Miller (1939), the ruling you referenced:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Seriously kill yourself.
muh nonruling that wasn't actually a case because the plaintiffs DID NOT FUCKING SHOW UP
1 - not a SCOTUS case, not a ruling etc. 2 - "in that previous ruling" the previous ruling on guns would be Heller, not Miller. As I also stated;
awful kike-English
I knew what you were getting at but you're wrong. SCOTUS can't legislate. What (((Milller))) was equates to mroe than legislation, it's jewdicial fiat and isn't legal. SCOTUS isn't the end all be all in US law btw.
(post is archived)