Gun Control & RKBA

dscontnt: Wrong again. It's amazing that you can write or copy a passage and either not read it or read it and not understand it.

I didn't write it, the law website 'oyez.org' wrote it, and they are fairly reputable. And I understand it very well. You need practice what you preach.
Here it is again, and it's amazing that you can 'read it and not understand it':
1939 miller decision re 2ndAmendment: UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR UNITED STATES The purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias; Congress could require registration of a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun if carried across state lines

dscntnt: The fact is that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court resulted after neither Miller nor his counsel appearing. I am not aware that a case such as Miller could be decided in his (or a similar party's) favor.

Abandonment by defense counsel occurs & occurred now and then, and decisions are rendered, or cases dismissed. You make little sense.

dscntnt: It is also grossly incorrect to infer from the Miller decision that there is no individual RKBA at all.

Grossly incorrect? how does that differ from simply 'incorrect'?
To wit again, not one of the 8 unanimous justices disagreed with the militia interpretation wording.

SCOTUS Miller decision, 1939: Facts of the case: An Arkansas federal district court charged Jack Miller and Frank Layton with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 (when they transported a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce. Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case.

Question: Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun?

UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR UNITED STATES The purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias; Congress could require registration of a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun if carried across state lines

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174