« No-knock raids and shootings of civilians | Main | Article on guns in parks »
Article on use of shotguns in war
Here's a pdf file from Army Lawyer, on the legalities of use of shotguns in war. It mentions the German WWI protest over use of the Winchester 1897, and threats to execute any soldier captured with one, and the American response (which after arguing legalities said the US would retaliate against their troops if they tried -- those were days when the game was played for keeps).
I found the historical discussion of use of shotguns equally interesting. And the note that in jungle fighting in Malaysia, the British found that at 30 yards, the shotgun was twice as likely to get a hit as a rifle, and I gather substantially more likely to get a hit than a submachine gun.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
The Army uses at least one shotgun on every Entry team, and there are probably thousands of Remington 870's in the Sandbox now.
Other than poor writing there's nothing wrong with Miller. It's not the Supreme Court's function to go out looking for evidence. Since neither side included any claim that short barrel shotguns were or were not military weapons nor any evidence supporting such a position, the court returned the case to the District Court to reach a determination on that point. If Miller hadn't been killed and Layton hadn't taken a cushy deal from the government (time served, IIRC), the lower court undoubtedly recognized the obvious utility of short barrel shotguns.
The shotgun was also a favorite for many soldiers in Vietnam.
Ken is absolutely correct. Miller was remanded for the District Court to make precisely that determination.
Judicial notice is for obvious, generally accepted and/or well-documented things, such as the fact that November 27, 2006 was a Monday. The use or non-use of a sawed-off shotgun in close combat is definitely not one of those facts.
So, did the U.S. District Court issue its opinion on shotguns after remand?
When one side is given 2 weeks notice to file a brief and show up for oral arguments and nobody shows up, there's even a telegram sent saying decide it just on the prosecution's briefs maybe, just maybe, there's a lawyer there that's grossly negligent of his duty. Instead of holding over the case or smacking the lawyer down for daring to pull that kind of stunt, they decide to go along with this farce and that's all she wrote.
There were other options available, more just but less politically convenient. Hopefully that's going to get fixed soon.
Can this article stand up as evidence proving the 1939 United States v. Miller case WRONG on the shotgun?
As everyone knows, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
What are the chances of the present day U.S. Supreme Court overturning Miller when the truth is presented?