Amazing isn’t it DC, we have lib Constitutional scholars that even admit that the 2nd applies to individuals but yet someone that claims to be conservative thinks it applies to states only. RP thinks that the Miller decision backs him just because of all the militia references, even though they don’t say that it does apply to milita in the decision.
Not surprising. Some people are heavily invested in the way the current legal system operates. If things were as they are written in the Constitution, their jobs probably wouldn’t exist.
I have posted that the vast majority of lower federal circuit court decisions have stated that the second amendment protects the ability of the states to form a Militia from federal infringement. So far, two have claimed it protects an individual right.
"RP thinks that the Miller decision backs him just because of all the militia references, even though they don’t say that it does apply to milita in the decision."
The Miller court backs no one. They remanded the case to the lower court, asking for clarification. The Miller court implied, however, that only Militia-type weapons are protected by the second amendment.