Reply #228: Fooled you once...

[PeterBrady]

And another point. This is the actual quote in the opinion of the USSC

"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."

Clearly the USSC is speaking of a short barreled shotgun and nothing else. But the ACLU frames their policy with the following quote:

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

The portion in bold is inserted to fool the uninformed into believing that this portion of their (ACLU) policy is also the ruling of the USSC. Read the ruling and see if you can find that statement contained anywhere within the USSC ruling or opinion.