Of course, the Miller court made no such ruling. They decided that they could not make a ruling one way or another about the short-barrel shotgun without further evidentiary hearings which never took place.
Stevens argument is long and circuitous, because it would never occur to him that self-defense is an inalienable right. I believe that this was so obvious to the Founders, that they neglected to set it down on paper.
1) Given Steven's and Breyer's position vis a vis the military use for arms, I trust we can count on them to fully support the home storage of machine guns for all members of the militia, and further more to support the marksmenship training (or regulation) for those people. As a retired member of the organized militia and a current member of the unorganized militia, I thank them.
2) Justice Breyer supports the intent "to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia."
Uh, what's the phrase you learned in law school, the Mr. Justice? "Assumes facts not in evidence"?
Finally, it's too bad the positions these liberals put forth aren't required to be internally consistent. About 2/3 of the arguments they put forth can be refuted by other opinions they themselves make within their own dissenting opinions. Sheesh.
I would assume so. A statist tyrant is a statist tyrant. (Of course published criticism of George Bush is different. Somehow. That's Constitutionally protected speech.)
That's absurd. He must think all the guys who use guns for "illicit purposes" scrupulously check the laws and would obey this one as opposed to all the others. Any law will have almost no effect on the behavior of the criminal class, except possibly to embolden them, whereas the spectrum of restrictive laws would have a whole range of impact on the feasibility of gun ownership for self defense.