That's an excellent point. The onus of proof is supposed to be on the accuser not the defendant. Can this possibly be reviewed by the USSC again since that the decision is somewhat confusing to some and for the reason that the defense had no representation?
Mike
That is why Roberts outlined the situation in his statement but refused to discuss any assessment that he might have made so far. The disagreement between the district courts is justification for a ruling from the Supreme Court. I said that I don't agree that Miller is sufficiently confusing to justify the "collective rights" nonsense of the Ninth Circus, but there is some confusion over what the Miller decision was really suggesting regarding the protection for some arms and not others.
Supreme Court decisions have invented "tests" of various sorts to manage the trade-offs involved when more than one person's rights are involved or when the government is attempting to regulate a protected area.
More important, perhaps, is the issue of "incorporation" of the Second Amendment using the Fourteenth Amendment.
Freedom of speech, for example, was enumerated in the First Amendment as a prohibition against Congress making any law. There was no protection against state laws. The Fourteenth Amendment was found to protect against state laws. The term "incorporation" describes the fact that the Supreme Court has found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects freedom of speech. At such time as some Supreme Court decision finds that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, then Kalifornia will find many of its onerous gun laws eliminated.
I hope I see this in my lifetime. Perhaps my future grandchildren will be named Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Brown, and Owens.