#100 | POSTED BY JOE
No, Joe, I did not get caught making s**t up. Miller offers no analysis of the amendment. It assumes, "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] ...," without citation or analysis of the history of the amendment. It was also a set up to test, and ultimately affirm the constitutionality of, the New Deal National Firearms Act.
That opinion is supported by my reading of numerous analyses of the case from many different sources. However, this source encapsulates the thoughts of the myriad sources. "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller" uknowledge.uky.edu Have fun with the footnotes or you can ignore it like you did with the 35 other cases article.
Like I said you must be a real charmer in court. Next time, instead of calling me a liar try asking for a citation or explication of my opinions. That's what discourse is. Otherwise, its Snoofyland for you.
BTW, throwing me into Trumpland is another mistake, I can't stand that Buffoon.