[ctdonath2]

Methinks the court used the “no evidence” line to neutralize the effect of Miller et al not showing up. They knew how important the case was, but couldn’t achieve a fair ruling without the defendant present. Saying

[MileHi]

Methinks the court used the “no evidence” line to neutralize the effect of Miller et al not showing up. They knew how important the case was, but couldn’t achieve a fair ruling without the defendant present.

The Court can not just assume evidence not before them. The clear implication was that had evidence been presented to the Court to show that a short barreled shotgun was a suitable militia weapon, they would have upheld the lower court and found for Miller.