In US v. Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the NFA by ruling:Yet the reality is that these restricted weapons are in common use by militias and the military alike:

- During WW1, 30k-40k SBS's were purchased by the US Ordnance Department, not also to mention the countless machine guns in use
- Che Guevara, in his 1961 book "Guerrilla Warfare", recommends that suburban guerrilla bands should be armed with easily concealable weapons, such as handguns and a sawed-off shotgun or carbine.
- The US military currently uses SBS's for breaching, and SBR's/MGs in pretty much everything infantry related.

This case has been used in DC vs Heller to argue that:I thought lawyers were supposed to be intelligent, how are these "laws" still being upheld by them?

Did you ever see this circus? Read the video description.



Around 3:16 the clerk attempts to read the amendment which bans the manufacture of new machine guns while Hughes asks that the reading of the amendment suspended. A Republican objects to the fact that the amendment will not be read and forces the reading to go forward. This goes back and forth for a while. The time for consideration runs out, and Hughes asks for additional time for consideration around 5:46. At 6:03 Rangel holds a voice vote (after the Republicans demand a recorded vote) in which he declares that enough ayes were heard, even though the nays are clearly more numerous. Rangel attempts to move forward, but enough Republican's speak up to demand a recorded vote on the previous voice vote and Rangel is unable to ignore them. When the recorded vote is held, it shows that the nays were indeed the majority and time is forced to expire on discussion of the Hughes amendment. At 8:17 a voice vote is held in which Rangel declares it passed. At 8:41 Rangel ignores a call for recorded vote (while smirking) and moves forward without taking a recorded vote which would have shown that the amendment failed.

just get a shockwave, brehddy

the ironic thing is that a short shot gun (blunderbuss) was a gun that was actually conceived of by the framers a million times more than an AR or whatever

It was never constitutional to begin with and they know it. It was the first step in the death by a thousand cuts to get rid of the 2nd

It should be noted that it was also referenced when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged. Double posting to bump because I can and also because bb.com is giving me "Access Denied".While US v. Miller was specifically about SBS's, it can essentially be extrapolated to any type of gun control.

Shall