Gun Control & RKBA

sarisataka: The amicus brief would be relevant if the language of the brief was quoted, or even paraphrased, in the decision. It was not.

Pffft. There were dozens of notations within the DoJ amicus brief advice, which the 1939 supreme court did not mention in the miller decision. But the supreme court ruling did mention several opinions from DoJ's amicus brief, which indicates they both were on the same page regarding the militial interpretation of 2ndA.

Miller 1939 decision: The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops {standing army} which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.

DoJ 1938 amicus brief: Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its {militial} infringement by Congress

Miller decision: "In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.

DoJ amicus brief: under the common law of England and of this country. In both countries the right to keep and bear arms has been generally restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.

Miller decision: Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that {2ndA} guarantees to the citizen {concomitantly in the broad sense here} the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

DoJ amicus brief: Sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles and machine guns are clearly weapons which can have no legitimate use in the hands of private individuals.

If you want a reason for why 1939 supreme court did not specifically mention DoJ's citing adams & 'no individual right', perhaps it was to recognize the dichotomy which existed in 1939 (& long prior), between the individual & militia interpretations within state constitutions, which would preclude federal interference:

1939 miller: Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seems to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below. https://guncite.com/miller-brief.htm