[Sonart]

.

70 years afterwards.... in fact how long since this was created, and people are still trying to figure out what it means?

Based on the standing precedent in Miller, and the overwhelming majority of the Federcal Circuit Courts of Appeal, It means you have the right to keep and bear arms provided it's necessary for the maintainance of a well regulated militia, as defined by Article I, Section 8, clause 15-16 of the Constitution.


Example: 1st Circuit Court - Cases. v U.S., Nov. 27, 1942

--"While the weapon may be capable of military use, or while at least familiarity with it might be regarded as of value in training a person to use a comparable weapon of military type and caliber, still there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career.."--

Additional standing precedents from the Circuit Courts that uphold Miller.

1st Circuit Court - Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42, 1984

2nd Circuit Court - Bach v. Pataki, Aug. 2004

3rd Circuit Court - U.S. v. Rybar, Dec. 1996

4th Circuit Court - Love v. Pepersack

5th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Johnson, April 28, 1971

6th Circuit Court of Appeals, united states v. warin, Feb. 1976

8th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Hale, Oct. 1992

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Silveira v. Lockyer, Oct. 1992

10th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 1977, Dec. 5, 2002

Quote by: Osborn I don't know a single gun owner who would relinquish their arms, regardless of what the court finds.

Is anyone asking you to?


.