[MileHi]

Thus the 5th Circuit makes the ruling that the 3rd Circuit should have made in Tot v. US (131 F.2d 261).

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?

[jdege]

The Court, in Tot, was faced with a felon in possession. Rather than finding that banning possession by a felon was a reasonable restriction on the RKBA, as the 5th just did, they ruled that SCOTUS had found - in Miller - that there was no RKBA. Which Miller most manifestly did not.

Try this:

CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT