[MileHi]

But hey. Say you're right and all those courts, and all those judges, in all those cases, were wrong.

Read the link.

The rulings are still there, bucko.

For now. But a review of those cases would bump up against the flawed reasoning and outright dishonest assertions that make up those cases.

You asked someone why the Court was concerned about the utility of Millers short barreled shotgun. It seems clear to me it was because had Miller shown it to be a common part of the militias equipment then the law banning it would indeed be unconstitutional, as the lower court had ruled. Of course Miller didn't appear, and the Court could not just presume facts not in evidence.

[robertpaulsen]

"It seems clear to me it was because had Miller shown it to be a common part of the militias equipment then the law banning it would indeed be unconstitutional"

And if could not be shown to be a common part?

[robertpaulsen]

"But a review of those cases would bump up against the flawed reasoning and outright dishonest assertions that make up those cases."

Hmmmm. Well, let's just hope that a review of this case and the 5th Circuit's don't turn out to be bumping up against some flawed reasoning and outright dishonest assertions.

[Texas Federalist]

Of course Miller didn't appear, and the Court could not just presume facts not in evidence.

Exactly. The actual holding of the decision was that the Court was not able to take judicial notice of the fact that a sawed off shotgun could be used by a militia. Presumably, if some evidence were presented, ANY weapon could fit in this category.

[zeugma]

Of course Miller didn't appear, and the Court could not just presume facts not in evidence.

Miller was dead, as such, though he was able to vote in Illinois, he couldn't appear in court.