Gun Control & RKBA

1939 scotus miller decision: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

guru: the decision and holding was focused on the type of weapon and its usefulness in battle. Nothing in Miller discusses Miller's or Layton's lack of association with any militia organization and that condition being determinate in the Court's denial of 2ndA protection for their possession of the shotgun.

You iterate the gun lobby song and dance to wiggle around the 1939 Miller decision, which was clear at the time in the vernacular of the day, the intention of 2ndA being for a well regulated militia not an individual right.
Miller and Layton were not involved with a well regulated militia (wrm) at the time they crossed state line with a sawed off shotgun. The unorganized militia did not count, nor did they cite it as far as I know - which would not apply anyway since the unorg'd militia fails the 2ndA litmus test which calls for a 'well regulated' militia and unorganized by definition is not well regulated.
_____________________________
1939 Miller case: With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

guru: That is only a statement that the object of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve the general militia principle. This another place where the McReynolds leans heavily on Aymette. That sentence from Miller does not support any interpretation making the right recognized and secured by the 2ndA conditioned on, or qualified by, a citizen's militia association.

Not really, and your tap dance does not impress. It was a statement that, since Jack Miller was not part of a wrm, he could not claim 2ndA rkba. Aymette, while a state ruling for militia for common defense, cited the English 'have arms' decree of 1688 as being the basis for 2ndA. Thus it carries more weight than a simple state ruling that residents had an individual or militia based rkba (which became the original militia/individual dichotomy in the early 1800's, as militia scofflaws argued for the individual rkba without serving in militia). The 1688 english 'have arms' decree was the basis for 2ndA.
----------------------------
guru: Why didn't you quote the government, in its summary of its argument unequivocally affirming SCOTUS precedent (Cruikshank / Presser) that the "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 infringement by Congress"?

I didn't cite the nazis losing wwII either. You in typical fashion preclude the 'people' as meaning synonymously the militia, in 1790's vernacular, 2ndA being singular amongst amendments due the situational.
2ndA is both a protective right as well as a limitation on congress, not 'merely recognizes the prior existence'.. 'Prior existence', although subjective, circa 1791 of any right to keep and bear arms was militia centric, only two colonies iirc mentioned individual right along with a militia rkba (see my next post).
By 'rights of individuals' it is meant the right/duty to belong to a well regulated militia.

The articles of confederation, in force during the rev-war, had this 'have arms' decree: Art VI “…Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed…and shall provide…a proper quantity of arms…” https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=208475

encyclopedia britannica: Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on Dec 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503541/Bill-of-Rights

Wm Rawle, 1829, A View of the Constitution, all caps by rawle - not my emphasis: CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power. The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

wiki: The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172167980