[robertpaulsen]

Essentially you're saying that the lower court decisions concluding a collective right were based on a flawed interpretation of Miller. Pretty bold statement there, Mr. I-know-what-Miller-really- means.

But hey. Say you're right and all those courts, and all those judges, in all those cases, were wrong. The rulings are still there, bucko.

[MileHi]

But hey. Say you're right and all those courts, and all those judges, in all those cases, were wrong.

Read the link.

The rulings are still there, bucko.

For now. But a review of those cases would bump up against the flawed reasoning and outright dishonest assertions that make up those cases.

You asked someone why the Court was concerned about the utility of Millers short barreled shotgun. It seems clear to me it was because had Miller shown it to be a common part of the militias equipment then the law banning it would indeed be unconstitutional, as the lower court had ruled. Of course Miller didn't appear, and the Court could not just presume facts not in evidence.