I have some questions which hopefully, some of the more legally astute here can help me with.
1.) In US v. Miller, my understanding is that the SCOTUS held that military weapons *were* covered under the 2nd. Thus, why can't one simply file suit, have one's lawyer point to US v. Miller as precedent, and request a court order allowing direct purchase of a currently in-use military weapon? Unlike Miller's issue, where it "wasn't within the [knowledge]" of the court that the sawed off shotgun had/has military utility, it should be easy to make sure that the court knows that the M4, M16, M249, etc. are currently in use.
2.) Ignoring #1, as a male between 17 and 45, we would generally agree (and I believe a court would as well) that I fall into the "unorganized militia" under 10 USC §311 (b)(2). As a member of the official, legally recognized militia, why can't one simply file a suit, again have one's lawyer explain to the court that as a member of the militia, one should have the same small arms that the US Army uses (one could even point to US v. Miller again here), and request a court order to require XYZ Arms, Inc. to sell you their current M4/M16/whatever military small arm, and that it be entered into the BATFE (*shudder*) registry as a US Govt. purpose or some such nonsense?
... Question 2 seems less focused to me after reading it, but still, I believe those here will take my meaning, and smack/correct me where appropriate on the phrasing.
Mostly, I'm wanting to know if there's some other legal precedent that I'm not aware of that will make me lose here, or if the courts are misbehaving, or if, perhaps, no one has *tried* such a direct route to getting something done about The State Of Things.
Detailed/cited information is appreciated, where those responding have the time and care enough to do so.
1.) In US v. Miller, my understanding is that the SCOTUS held that military weapons *were* covered under the 2nd. Thus, why can't one simply file suit, have one's lawyer point to US v. Miller as precedent, and request a court order allowing direct purchase of a currently in-use military weapon? Unlike Miller's issue, where it "wasn't within the [knowledge]" of the court that the sawed off shotgun had/has military utility, it should be easy to make sure that the court knows that the M4, M16, M249, etc. are currently in use.
2.) Ignoring #1, as a male between 17 and 45, we would generally agree (and I believe a court would as well) that I fall into the "unorganized militia" under 10 USC §311 (b)(2). As a member of the official, legally recognized militia, why can't one simply file a suit, again have one's lawyer explain to the court that as a member of the militia, one should have the same small arms that the US Army uses (one could even point to US v. Miller again here), and request a court order to require XYZ Arms, Inc. to sell you their current M4/M16/whatever military small arm, and that it be entered into the BATFE (*shudder*) registry as a US Govt. purpose or some such nonsense?
... Question 2 seems less focused to me after reading it, but still, I believe those here will take my meaning, and smack/correct me where appropriate on the phrasing.
Mostly, I'm wanting to know if there's some other legal precedent that I'm not aware of that will make me lose here, or if the courts are misbehaving, or if, perhaps, no one has *tried* such a direct route to getting something done about The State Of Things.
Detailed/cited information is appreciated, where those responding have the time and care enough to do so.