What America would look like if it didn't change their Amendments

[FBaggins]

28. Once again... general claims without evidence

Except for {your own imaginings}. The Miller court makes no evaluation of whether a qualifying militia still existed at the time, nor whether Miller was a member of such.

You are 'impartially' adjudging a politically biased Scalia led 2008 supreme court ...

I haven't cited Scalia or the Heller ruling. Scalia had nothing to do with Emerson.

The Emerson court ruled unanimously (including a Carter appointee) that there was an individual right. Unlike Miller, they explicitly considered the three prevailing theories of the day. SCOTUS denied cert despite Ginsburg/Breyer/Souter/Stevens/Kennedy/O'Connor being on the court... they could not muster even four justices who felt that it should be reviewed.

You spout bulloffal. Here is the miller rendering:

You obviously missed the point. The DOJ made two arguments: 1) That there is no individual right and 2) even if there were such a right, this weapon would not be covered by it. While SCOTUS adopted much of the rationale for #2... they included nothing from the argument that there was no individual right. You cannot, therefore, continue to argue that it's what they really meant (let alone that it's "stare decisis & all that".

Immediately following Miller, the 1st Circuit ruled in Cases v. United States. They recognized exactly what I'm saying above: That the Miller decision rested entirely on the type of weapon being used and that it was as far as the court was willing to go on the issue... not a general rule for all 2A cases.

Question - This was just three years after Miller. If that unanimous court disagreed with what the 1st circuit was saying... if your take on the ruling was the general understanding... why didn't they just pick up the case and smack them down?