There's a couple things wrong in this article.
First, everyone who is a RKBA supporter should understand that the NRA was, at best, a bystander in this court case, and at worst, no help and only a hinder to winning this case. This case was won because, as Don Kates was fond of telling me in 1994, the lawyers finally found the right plaintiffs -- people who were law-abiding, and had not been arrested for violation of one or more laws, one of which was a gun ban. Instead, these were people who were being denied their civil liberties.
Second, the blither-blather than somehow, the SCOTUS ruling in Miller was the "last word" on the individual vs. state's rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is false. People should go read Miller, and in so doing, they will find out that the Second Amendment was largely a tangent to the central issue of "was Mr. Miller in violation of the 1934 act when he possessed a sawed-off shotgun?" The court then digressed into whether a sawed-down shotgun was a "militia weapon" and therefore, was there an individual right to own such a weapon?
The SCOTUS has never ruled dead-square-center on the Second Amendment, and it has never been "incorporated" via the Fourteenth into state-level rights for individuals, the way the First, Fourth, etc have been.
Yes, but SCOTUS heard Miller on its merits, rather than stating that Miller the man had no standing. As such, it is an individual right. Further, all of the discussion regarding the particulars of the shotgun in the case had to do with the issue of which weapons are protected for individuals to own. The Supremes (wrongly, IMHO) said that it was basically weapons suitable for increasing the efficiency/effectiveness of the militia (which they identified as all citizens and residents from 17-45). Since there was no "judicial notice" that a sawed-off shotgun was suitable (i.e. since Miller had no attorney representing him), they ruled against Miller and his shotgun.
That, however, raises a really interesting point - SCOTUS effectively said that you've got to have a military weapon or something that functions in an essentially identical manner - and banning such weapons is unconstitutional. So what does that say for Title 18, Section 922(o) (the 1986 ban on additions to the NFA list of civilian held full autos)? It says that it is unconstitutional. Who could deny the utility of an M-16, an M-4 or even an M14 (since it never officially left service, and is now being brought back for the DM's for longer-range engagements)? Heck, I think that you could make a powerful argument that any hand-held firearm ever used by the military was a "militia" weapon, thereby protecting Tommyguns, revolving cylinder shotguns, etc.
I'd like to see Parker get to SCOTUS, and for it to affirm the decision - at least insofar as the 2nd being protection for an individual right...because if it does this, then 922(o) is not long for this world, and we'll be able to buy new full autos for reasonable prices.
n., pl. a·mi·ci curiae (ə-mç'kç). A party that is not involved in a particular litigation but that is allowed by the court to advise it on a matter of law directly affecting the litigation.
If the NRA was a bystander, wouldn't they have been bystanding while this was going on?
It looks like the GOA was AWOL again. Just like they were during Katina, Castle Doctine and the lawsuits against the manufacturers.