[SoothingDave]

But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?

The Miller case doesn't say any such thing. That's gun prohibitionist spin.

The case deal with the type of gun, a sawed off shotgun. The SCOTUS ruled that it had no evidence before it to lead it to conclude that such a weapon was useful in warfare and therefore a suitable weapon for a "well-regulated militia."

(Of course, Miller was gone and he had no legal representation to present such evidence.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?

The Miller case doesn’t say any such thing. That’s gun prohibitionist spin.

---

Exactly. The Feds tried to argue that Miller did not have the right to a short shotgun because he was an individual, and not a member of the militia. This argument FAILED, and SCOTUS ruled only that the gun lacked military usefulness, and was prohibitable on that basis.