bthest86 said:
Basically their excuse is that they disagree with those rulings so they're going to pretend that they don't exist and continue to use their own interpretation of the 2A (which I believe is more inline with Miller v US).
Except that a close reading of Miller shows that there was no evidence before the court (because Miller was most likely already dead, or his lawyer wasn't paid to show up and present an oral argument) to show that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches had any reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.
The Justices go on to lay out the historic definition of a militia (ordinary citizens, with their own, privately owned weaponry), and say that thos eprivately held arms must have some relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Exactly what that relationship is, is not defined, but they did give a hint when they suggested that they bear some relationshhip to ordinary military equipment in use at the time.
It took two subsequent Circuit Court cases (U.S. v Tot, Cases vs. US, IIRC, which both cited Miller) to invent legal "taste-tests" that the owner of firearm can only possess for purposes of participating in militia activities.
I then took some anti-gun lawyers and Justices to create, out of thin air, the Collective Right interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
But a close reading of Miller shows exactly the opposite; IMO, a close reading (reading just what the Justices wrote) of Miller invalidates the Assault Weapons Ban!
Since many members of the armed forces are issued handguns as sidearms, handgun bans go out the window, as well. And military firearms also typically have high-capacity magazines, so out goes the Hi-Cap Mag bans, too.
Hell, a close reading of Miller might just invalidate (or just severely curtail) the NFA.
In my Not-A-Lawyer opinion, Miller was a good ruling; it ruled only on the facts before the Court, but realizing it was hearing a one-sided argument, they left an "out" for subsequent rulings to reaffirm the individual right to K&B.
