Gun Control & RKBA

discntnt: You're quoting the prosecution's argument not the court's decision. Since it is beyond the purview of a judge to bring evidence to the court and since the neither defendants nor counsel appeared, the decision rendered draws solely from the points argued by the prosecutors and existing relevant laws.

That's the gun lobby rendition of it, their song & dance to water down the 1939 supreme court miller decision that clearly stood for a militia interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
That's the gun lobby's concocted propaganda they feed to gullible saps who want to believe they have an unfettered right to keep & bear most all kinds of guns & military style firearms without ever having to do a single day in military service to america.

Facts of the case: An Arkansas federal district court charged Jack Miller and Frank Layton with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 (when they transported a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce. Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case.

Question: Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun?

UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR UNITED STATES The purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias; Congress could require registration of a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun if carried across state lines

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174