Stupid liberal logic. So let's see... Before Heller, they say individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms outside of a militia/military context. After Heller, you can't keep and bear arms because they are weapons of war. Which is it? Whichever argument is convenient? You can't have it both ways. Incidentally, Miller was remanded because there was no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was ever used in the military, and that was the criteria used as to whether it was protected under the Second Amendment. Looking at this case through the eyes of Miller, weapons of war must be protected, so this case cannot stand. Using The same liberal logic applied here, not only sawed-off shotguns but full-auto and select-fire machine guns as "weapons of war" are protected via Miller and the 1986 ban is unconstitutional. They just opened Pandora's box.