Miller v. US & its use of Virginia militia statutes
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.]