Don't do something because it has never been done before? This makes sense HOW?
As I said ... the lower courts, the defense showed proof that "sawed off" shotguns had been used by the militia/military.
But neither the defendant nor defense attorney showed up to the Supreme Court trial ... so the prosecution was able to get away with the lie.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174
United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit (later to be folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF) which at the time was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service),[1] with a $200 tax paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.
In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.[2] [3]
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered
I find a couple things about it interesting.
First - the NFA passed due to "public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre" ... an act between criminal gangs.
7 gang members and 2 affiliates were killed. No innocent civilians were killed or wounded.
Yet today, it's virtually impossible to expand restrictions on firearms even after dozens of children are killed / injured by a shooter.
Second - Judge Ragon allegedly ruled in the defendants favor, knowing the government would take it to the Supreme Court and the defense would disappear. Why not just rule against the defendants, then? They would still disappear, and it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. > Did he know the SCOTUS would rule against them, and that's what he was looking for? A SCOTUS "nail in the coffin"?
Nanoose 