You don't need to declare that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms in order to forbid convicted felons from possessing firearms.
It was Tot that invented the idea that Miller declared that there was no individual right, and from which all subsequent case law has derived.
And it's Tot - not Miller - that needs to be reversed.
I'm not so sure this is a win. If a felon can't be trusted with his rights, then shouldn't that person still be imprisoned? I don't see any Constitutional provision for citizens with partial rights.
You might be interested in the docs regarding the Miller decision. It has more information about the history of it than you'll find just about anywhere.
You also might be interested in U.S. v. Dalton, and U.S. v. Rock Island Armory.
A felon can lose access to his Rights via due process. It's in the Constitution. We don't need yet another ruling that someone can use to obfuscate the issue. Our judiciary and legislators just need to start taking the Constitution at face value. Period.
"it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms"
Couldn't help but crack up at the infants part. I agree though.
A loophole you could drive a truck through. If this court ever actually strikes down a particular restriction instead of just paying lip service to the 2nd Amendment, I'll shit a brick.
bump for later discussion
I'd say they both need to be reversed. Miller stands for the notion that some sort of legislative "infringement" of the RKBA is allowed, based merely on the character of particular arms. It dealt with the National Firearms Act, and specifically with short barreled shotguns. Why should the right to keep and bear a perfectly good home defense firearm be subject to such legislative fiat? It's also fodder for those judges and justices who want to read "right of the people" as "right of the militia" and then, often as not, define the militia as the National Guard.
You don't need to declare that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms in order to forbid convicted felons from possessing firearms.
It was Tot that invented the idea that Miller declared that there was no individual right, and from which all subsequent case law has derived.
And it's Tot - not Miller - that needs to be reversed.
After reading this I went to read Tot. I guess I don't follow you here. First the Court seemed to draw a distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce, which would be a good thing it seems if they were saying that a gun is not forever "in or affecting" interstate commerce. Still, they upheld one part and overturned the other and didn't find a major difference in the two cases.
Also I found no Miller reference. Could you comment more about this case?