[Cboldt]

-- It has taken over seventy years to address the nonsensical readings of US vs. Miller. --

Only to have it replaced with a different nonsensical reading, this time by Scalia no less. Scalia reads the 2nd amendment as permitting the government to ban the private possession of M-16's, based directly on a dishonest construction of Miller.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Scalia reads the 2nd amendment as permitting the government to ban the private possession of M-16’s, based directly on a dishonest construction of Miller.

---

Your concern is unwarranted. Good judges all the time say in “dicta” that their ruling should not be interpreted beyond the facts before them. That’s called “judicial restraint.

Just because the opinion did not rule on M-16s does not mean it ruled against them.

Doubt me? Provide the quote that concerns you, and I’ll point it out.