I agree. That is the reason why I am so disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to hear Emerson. There is no logic to any ruling which fails to protect my right to keep and bear arms from infringement. There is absolutely no record of our founders being concerned about the lethality of the arms protected by the Second Amendment. "Every terrible implement of war" was one description of the protected arms.
All of this NFA 34 and "assault weapons" nonsense would have to end with any decision based on the record. The so-called "moderates" on the court must have made it clear that they would refuse to be bound by logic in order to cause the situation we see now. Now that even liberal legal experts are understanding the clear meaning of the Second Amendment, there is no way for the Supreme Court to render a decision except in favor of our Founder's wisdom.
... and hence, we see them deny cert. like cowards. Could there possibly be some grand purpose to the betterment of future gun rights for them to deny cert in these two cases? Not only don't I see how it could be possible, but I also find it objectionable that both the circuit court contradictions are allowed to stand, and that the tortured and weak reasoning offered by Olson as a reason to deny cert, appeared to stick. It looked to me like he was throwing the court softballs, if anything, the logic was so weak, and instead, SCOTUS did as he asked and denied cert.