Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


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
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
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
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
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

1 Comment | Leave a comment

RKV | January 4, 2006 10:31 PM | Reply

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

Leave a comment