No, you said more than that.
Post 462 by robertpaulsen: "You are correct, it shouldn't."
The lower courts tying the RKBA to militias cite Miller and interpret it improperly to the extent that some require militia membership. Even Miller did not suggest that there was any "judicial notice" missing other than the usefulness of the weapon.
The entire house of cards built by anti-gunners revolves around Miller. Even you, robertpaulsen, provided no distinction which would prevent a correct reading of the Second Amendment from being incorporated via the Fourteenth. Then you wave your hands as if Miller doesn't matter.
Your recent claim that there was no "ruling" in Miller is quite laughable. Please consult your legal experts on the possibility of a remand without a ruling. A remand is an order for a lower court to rule again. To do so without guidance is to suggest that the same ruling would be possible. Please cite any other remand in the history of the republic without a ruling.
The convenient error in Miller must be sustained by the Supreme Court in order to prevent the collapse of the house of cards. They can only do this by denying cert. They dare not attempt to "interpret" the Second Amendment the way Miller did.
Well, what was the ruling? This is like the second or third time I've asked.
Well, what was the ruling? This is like the second or third time I've asked.
"You are correct, it shouldn't."
You left out my explanation. "You are correct, it shouldn't (because) in other non-second-amendment cases, the courts have ruled that these clauses do not limit the meaning. For some reason, the courts are treating the militia clause of the second amendment as limiting (ie., the individual RKBA is dependent on an association with a militia)(post #490)."
What is that reason William Tell? I don't know, but I'd like to find out.