The blunderbuss was intended to be a naval close quarters room clearing gun. Much like how shotguns are employed on a modern entry team. They are part of the larger unit and had their place. [More]If only that had been argued to the Miller court...
[Via Florida Guy]
4 comments:
There were no arguments to the SCOTUS on behalf of Miller. From pages 66 and 67 of http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
“Supreme Court Clerk Charles Cropley wrote to [Miller’s attorney] Gutensohn on March 15, informing him the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal and expected to hear oral argument on March 31.131 Gutensohn wrote back on March 22, asking why he had not received the record or the government’s brief and emphasizing that he represented Miller and Layton pro bono.132 Cropley replied on March 25, informing Gutensohn that the government had submitted a typewritten brief and he could do the same. In the alternative, Cropley suggested the court could postpone oral argument until April 17.
But on March 28, Gutensohn replied by telegram: “Suggest case be submitted on Appellants brief. Unable to obtain any money from clients to be present and argue case = Paul E Gutensohn.”133 He was probably relieved to be rid of Miller and Layton. On March 30, 1939, seven justices of the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Miller. Chief Justice Hughes was ill,134 and the newly appointed Justice Douglas was not confirmed until April 4. Gordon Dean represented the United States and no one represented Miller or Layton.135 Two days later, Gutensohn finally received four copies of the government’s brief.136”
The secret to understanding Miller is to understand that NOTHING of substance was argued to ANY Miller court.
Miller’s original “trial” never occurred — Judge Ragon threw the case out of court TWICE as repugnant to the Second Amendment. Therefore, no arguments.
SCOTUS heard an appeal lodged by the fedguv. SCOTUS responded that none of the facts they needed were part of their judicial notice because they had never been argued, evidence had never been presented, and so on (remember, this was an appeal, not a trial). Their only ruling was to order the lower court to proceed to hold an actual trial.
But Miller was dead, and Layton had earlier plea bargained, so there was no more case, and it was never tried.
Technically, there WERE arguments to SCOTUS, in that the fedguv begged SCOTUS to rule the NFA prima facie constitutional. SCOTUS declined to be pinned down.
Result: giant nothingburger of a decision, spun by the MSM as a giant victory for gun control (what else did you expect?)
Miller court? We are to be screwed, and the greater the extent to which we are to be screwed, the better, as far as they are concerned. Thus, to hell with them.
Actually, the article you linked to has several problems with it. To whit:
Why the "trumpet" muzzle? Well just like a musical instrument the flailed muzzle not only unintentionally acts as a "loudner" (the opposite of a silencer/suppressor) will throw shot in a wider disposition much like a trumpet dose sound. Almost like the "anti-choke".
It doesn't really do either of those things. The flared muzzle only helps with loading the gun while on a carriage, horseback, or on the deck of a rolling ship.
Also, at 30 feet or so, the spread of the shot isn't much more than it would be from a conventional fowling piece or full-sized musket. That's a function of how the gun is choked, and all guns back then (at least to my knowledge) were cylinder choked (ie., not choked at all). Flaring the muzzle has very little to no effect on how the shot is spread.
You wouldn't be "Blunderbuss on hip at the ready. BLAM BLAM.... If there is anyone in there, they are not happy.", not unless you were mostly trying to miss on purpose.
Post a Comment