Replies

“The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.””

Note the word “has” before the Miller quote. The NYT wants us to think that the Miller court ruled that the OWNERSHIP was related to a militia. However, in the ruling, it was that the GUN that must have some such relationship.

Here is the quote from Miller:

In the absence of any 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.

Beelzebubba said: "Here is the quote from Miller:"

Further supporting the proper reading of the quote is the fact that they said "possession or use of a shotgun", not "possession or use of their shotgun" or "possession or use of his shotgun".

You are correct that Miller decided (incorrectly, I believe) that the possession by Miller of some arms is protected and the possession by Miller of other arms is not protected. In any case, they never questioned that Miller himself was the one afforded the protection by the Second Amendment.

So it's no wonder that I have given up on the NY Times Editorial Board's Masthead Editorials. They can't even get the basic facts straight.

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

IIRC, the federal trial judge was the district judge who dismissed Parker.

SHELLY PARKER, ET AL., (were) APPELLANTS i.e. the folks who appealed the dismissal.

Here's the pdf link of the decision that zeugma was so kind to convert to HTML.

SHELLY PARKER, ET AL., (were) APPELLANTS

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment 4 (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.

The trial court was reversed by the appeals court. In my humble opimion, I don't think these idiots come from New York City.