They quoted Miller, too -- but, unlike pretty much every other citation I've every seen on that case, they got it right! They actually understood what that court said! The Miller decision was strongly pro-2nd, yet, it's been perveted over the years into something that allegedly endorses a position 180 degrees opposed to what it said.
WRT to things like "Assault Weapons", if Miller were to be the yardstick, the ONLY firearms that would be protected private ownership via the 2nd would be things like "Assault Weapons"! The sole criteria addressed by Miller was, "Is this firearm suitable for use by the military? If so, then a civilian's right to own it may not be infringed!"
It's truly Orwellian that the antis have managed to pervert Miller into a tool used for the exact opposite of what it actually says.
And it's truly amazing that this court was sufficiently ballsy to say what it said.
I see only two possible scenarios.
One, they are serious about restoring the 2nd to its actual purpose, or, two, they know it's a lost cause, so, "what the hell", might as well tell the truth, since it won't matter in the long run.
I guess we'll find out before too long whether or not the fix is in.
In the book by Hallbrook that I mentioned in #1001 he writes:
"There is a hidden history of the Second Amendment which is long overdue to be written. It is this: during the ratification period of 1787-1791, Congress and the states considered two entirely separate groups of amendments to the Constitution. The first group was a declaration of rights, in which the right of the people to keep and bear arms appeared. The second group, consisting of amendments related to the structure of government, included recognition of the power of states to maintain militias. The former became the Bill of Rights, while the latter was defeated.[3] Somehow, through some Orwellian rewriting of history, as applied to the issues of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the state militia power, that which was defeated has become the meaning of that which was adopted."
It looks to me like the American people have been sold a pack of lies about the authors' intentions for the BOR. But I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand all the arcane rules of interpretation they use to compound the confusion in the public's minds, so what do I know?
No, I don't think the Miller court went that far. It has been read that way yes.
The court's actions hinted that if the weapon was suitable for use by the militia then the tax stamp was an infringement on the weapon. In other words, the tax stamp infringed on the ability of a state to form a Militia using this weapon OR it infringed on the ability of an individual Militia member to obtain this weapon OR it infringed on the ability of a civilian to obtain this weapon.
Or all three, I don't know. No one knows. The Miller court never said why they needed this "evidence of a relationship to a Militia".
I agree with part of what you said. The Miller court seemed to be saying that the ONLY "arms" protected by the second amendment from federal infringement are those arms that bore some reasonable relationship to a Militia! Good news? I'm not so sure.
What if some future liberal court decided that handguns, though used by the Militia officers, were not the weapon of the average Militia soldier? They could conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns was only protected for the state-appointed officers mentioned In Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
They wouldn't do that? Hey, who would have thought a U.S. Supreme Court would approve of McCain-Feingold? Or Abortion? Sodomy? The Kelo decision? Nude dancing and flag burning as "speech"?
Yeah, they would.