Of Arms and the Law
Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home
Get an autographed copy of our Heller brief! $7.99 incl. S&H
Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography

ISOcover150x200sm.jpg

I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.


2nd Amendment Discussions
1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
The BitchGirls
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Visitors since April 1, 2005: Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 3.15
Site Design by Sekimori

« Mich. a full auto state | Main | Wrap of gun issues in Congress, 2005 »

Miller v. US & its use of Virginia militia statutes

Posted by David Hardy · 3 January 2006 01:03 PM

Rudy DiGiacinto, founder of www.virginia1774.org, has established an interesting webpage relating to Miller's citation of Virginia militia statutes, and its conclusion that the Court could not take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun was a militia-type weapon.

[Legal detail: normally you have to provide evidence in order to prove a fact in court. There is an exception for cases where the court can take "judicial notice" that a fact is true. This is limited to facts that are well known and objectively demonstrable -- that June 14 fell on a Tuesday, Richmond is the capital of Virginia, etc. Here, I think Rudy's demonstration that one could show, from original and available documents, that a blunderbusses were used as military weapons, might pass the test. You might still need some testimony that a short-barrelled shotgun is the equivalent of a blunderbuss, maybe not. But as I've earlier posted (see archives, heading of Miller v. US], the Miller opinion was drafted in haste, based on only the government's brief (which wasn't terribly good, either), and written by a Justice whose distinction was not his intellect but the fact that he was widely reputed the most obnoxious man in Washington -- then as now, quite a distinction.]

· US v. Miller

Comments

David, I could refer you to my brother who carried a sawed-off double barreled shotgun as a personal weapon in Vietnam.

Posted by: RKV at January 4, 2006 10:31 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)