[El Gato]

However, I should point out that while a lot of Ross's historical points are very good, some of them should *not* be taken as gospel. He fumbled a few key points about the 1939 US Supreme Court decision _US v Miller_, for example, and in his passages about the JFK assassination he leans way too much towards some of the more tinfoil-hatted conspiracy "factoids", including the highly questionable and the outright discredited.

I'm sure you are right, but could you point out the key errors or distortions in each case, as an educational exercise? Other than the clearly fictionalised accounts of conversations during the arrest and between Miller and his lawyer, as well as the lawyer and his partner.

To my way of thinking two things were highly unusual about the case. First it was appealed directly to the Supreme Court from the district court and second the Solicitor General of the United States himself argued the case before the Suprme Court. (FYI, That's the same position now held by Ted Olson) To me this means that the administration at the time (Roosevelt, IIRC) felt it highly important that this first federal encroachment on the second amendment be upheld.

[tpaine]

To my way of thinking two things were highly unusual about the case. First it was appealed directly to the Supreme Court from the district court and second the Solicitor General of the United States himself argued the case before the Suprme Court. (FYI, That's the same position now held by Ted Olson) To me this means that the administration at the time (Roosevelt, IIRC) felt it highly important that this first federal encroachment on the second amendment be upheld.
87 -El Gat-

Exactly. -- 'They' knew damn well the '34 Act was unconstitutional.
Even though the judicial system was well compromised by then, a common sense defense of Miller would have been impossible to explain away.

Thus, the administration lawyers played their games well, and won big.