[Lurker]

“What needs to be reversed is Wickard v Filburn.”

Then Miller.

L

[MileHi]

Then Miller

Actually the court got Miller pretty much right. But pretty much every lower court that cited Miller claimed it said the opposite of what it actually said.

[absalom01]

It could be argued that what Miller needs is better clarification rather than being tossed out whole.  As you know, by the time the case got to SCOTUS, Miller himself had gone on the lam, and only the government's case was heard.  But what the RKBA folks have long argued is that the gist of the court's finding (which subsequent courts have ignored) is that a sawed-off  shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, so the Second Amendment doesn't come into play.  Which, logically can only mean that militarily useful arms are in fact, specifically the topic of the 2nd amendment, and are protected.  This flies in the face of the current efforts to ban "assault weapons" because, the gun-grabbers claim, these are "weapons of war".  Miller, properly interpreted, could stand the past 50 years of unconstitutional gun control regulation on its head.

A guy can dream, can't he?

[Salamander]

Then 2020.