1939 case defined arms 'suitable for militia use at the present time'

To The Daily Sun,

The debate concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment rages on. One of the main talking points of the anti-gun people is the idea that the only guns so protected were the militia arms that were available at the time. The U.S. Supreme Court examined this question in 1939. The result of that case is the main reason why our gun laws are what they are today. The back story of "Miller vs. U.S." reads like an old fashioned crime novel and provides tidbits for both sides to ponder.

In his essay, "The Peculiar Story of U.S. v. Miller", Professor Brian Frye of the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty tells how Mr. Miller was used as a test case to justify the National Firearms Act of 1934. He belonged to a gang of motorized bandits and when he was finally apprehended, had in his possession a sawed off shotgun in violation of the NFA. The anti-gun court, ruled that because such weapons were the tools of criminals and not suitable for militia use, they were not protected by the Second. With that definition of "arms suitable for militia use at the present time." they also defined which arms were covered, in common use at the PRESENT time, either then or now. Written in 2009, I urge anyone interested in the subject to read this definitive work by Professor Frye, and to learn about what happened to the unfortunate Mr. Miller.

So since AR-15s have certainly been in common use for over 50 years, it is pretty hard to use that argument against them. The proof of that interpretation is that over 300 million firearms exist in private hands today. Good luck getting rid of them.

Alan Moon

Tilton