Stupidest post I’ve seen on this board. Just because Scalia thinks that Stevens’ reading of Miller is impossible does not mean that he doesn’t share my view that if the Supreme Court had thought that Miller’s non-membership in a militia was relevant, they would have used it to toss the case before even reaching the question of whether a short barreled shotgun was a militia weapon. He clearly does share that view, which you called question begging.
Does that inane babbling have a point to it?
I have repeatedly cited Miller and stated my agreement with it. So does Scalia.
Keep on toking.