I agree that US v. MILLER was a proceeding that didn’t comport with due process as we understand it today. However subsequent appellate courts and the press have misrepresented the holdings of the case. In pertinent part, the SCOTUSin MILLER held that:

“In the ABSCENCE OF EVIDENCE tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT or that its use could contribute to the common defense. ” (emphasis added).

The SCOTUS remanded the case for further proceedings. However, Mr. Miller died before the case could be tried. Had it been tried, he could have introduced evidence that, in fact, short-barreled shotguns had a military purpose and was part of the ordinary military equipment. They were frequently used during WWI as “trench brooms” and even today they are ordinarily used by the military in urban combat scenarios.

Essentially, the MILLER court found that the 2nd gave citizens the right to own any weapons that would be part of the ordinary equipment in the military. My take on that is that would include machine guns, short barreled rifles, and other things the BATFE would crap their pants over.

What is egregious is how Scalia cast the findings of MILLER.

Scalia stated in HELLER:
“Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

He glued together two independent and unrelated clauses to import a meaning to MILLER that it never had because the SCOTUS didn’t like the conclusions that MILLER’s language lead to, namely, that machine guns and other militarily useful weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment. By reading into the 2nd amendment that the only arms that were protected were those “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense, Scalia engaged in precisely the kind of judicial activism that we decry the left doing. He imported his policy preferences into the language of the Constitution.

So, ultimately, it was not MILLER that screwed the country over, but Scalia’s re-framing of MILLER. Why did he do it? I don’t know, but I suspect he did it to appease other justices to get the necessary votes for a decision.

The same party that keeps literally begging for an insurrection. The same party that s-e-x-u-a-l-l-y groomed a generation of kids, giving us troon/furry assassins and an endless supply of broken people.

But only the congress can pass legislation that makes the executive branch changes permanent.

The dems are a criminal terrorist .org and need to be treated as such.