The Second Amendment Arguement??

[PJgunner]

It goes even farther than that. The Militia Act of 1792 states exactly who is the militia and what they were to be armed with. Later on, there was Title 10 of the U.S.C which went even farter, reaffirming the Militia act of 1792 and bringing it up to date. One of the point was, the militia was to be armed "with the weapon currently in use" by our military. So why are we not allowed out M-16s?
To carry this a bit further, in U.S v Miller, 1939, the Supreme Court stated that the Send Amendent was still valid, and that the Militia act and Title 10 were also the law of the land. The case involve one Miller who was convicted of violation the part of the national Firearms act in that he possessed a saw off shot gun. He stated that the gun was in use by the military and therefore should be a legally owned firearm. However, when his case reached the Supreme court, he lost because he didn't show up to defend himself. It took some searching, but the reason he was a no show is because he died.
I believe that if he had not died, and had been able to present his case, NFA 34 would have been declared unconstitutional and removed from the books.
Bad luck for us and good luck for th antis.
Paul B.