Which Americans support the Second Amendment? The answer depends on whether whites or blacks have th

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

Which Americans support the Second Amendment? The answer depends on whether whites or blacks have the guns.

By Logan Strother and
Daniel Bennett November 24 at 7:00 AM

In Georgia, the recent race between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams attracted its share of national attention — and not just because an Abrams victory would have made her the first nation’s first female black governor.

On Election Day, Fox News personality Laura Ingraham tweeted a story from the conservative news website the Daily Caller titled “Armed with Assault Rifles, Black Panthers March for Stacey Abrams.” The story prominently features photos of black men holding rifles and posing next to an Abrams campaign sign. Ingraham referred to the men sarcastically as “peace-loving, tolerant radicals.”

-snip-

In the past, Ingraham has supported gun rights and characterized the armed response from supporters of Cliven Bundy’s dispute with the Bureau of Land Management as “an act of civil disobedience.” But in this case, her response was different — even though the Black Panthers’ actions were legal under Georgia’s “open carry” law.

This seeming inconsistency illustrates an important feature of public support for constitutional protections. In short, public support depends on how much the public likes the person or group exercising these rights. Our research shows that Second Amendment rights are no different.

Here’s how we did our research

Between June 12 and June 22 of this year, we surveyed a sample of 1,013 Americans. The survey was fielded by Survey Sampling International/ResearchNow. SSI maintains a large online opt-in panel from which participants are recruited. This sample was recruited to be representative in terms of age, education, sex, race and region of the country.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/24/which-americans-support-the-second-amendment-the-answer-depends-on-whether-whites-or-blacks-have-the-guns/

[Nitram]

2. That's an odd question. My take is that gun nuts interpret the meaning of the amendment differently

than the rest of us, preferring to ignore the implications of the "well-organized militia" phrase. Until the 1960s, the NRA interpreted it the same way we all do.

[needledriver]

3. The "implications" of the well regulated militia clause

are that being in a well regulated militia was just one example why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms was intended to be limited to the militia, the 2nd Amendment would have stated "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..." It does not say that. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Who are "the people"? You can go all the way to the top of the Constitution to see who: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the People of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

[Nitram]

4. That's your idiosyncratic interpretation. There are two interpretations that are widely accepted

by the two camps of constitutional "experts." The People (being land-owning men) were given the right to own an arm, and the right to bear that arm in the company of a well-regulated militia. To "bear an arm" meant to carry a gun for use in combat. I'm afraid your extension of the Second Amendment to include the necessity to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" would not be accepted by anyone with a thorough knowledge of constitutional law. Good try, though. Might fool a few yokels, but if you look into the history of militias, you will find their primary purpose was to put down rebellions against the government. Exactly the opposite of the NRA reading.

[hack89]

6. A simple challenge for you

show me any place and time in American history where private ownership of guns independent of the militia was not the norm. Show me any laws that specifically required people to hand in their guns because they were not part of the militia. If you are right then it should not be hard.

Do you also understand that your interpretation is not the Democratic party position? Hillary, Obama and Bernie are both on record as saying the 2A supports an individual right independent from the militia. When Obama ran, that position was explicitly written into the Party platform.

[Nitram]

7. I make a distinction between owning and practicing the safe use of a firearm,

and "bearing" a firearm in public. For example, can you show me any place and time in American history where people were allowed to carry a gun into a bar? Into the workplace? Into a school? The NRA contends we have the righ to do all three.

[hack89]

8. We are talking about guns and the militia.

please show me the case law that supports your position.

We can talk about the idiocy of the NRA some other time.

[Nitram]

10. The history around the Bill of Rights supports my claim. During debates on what rights should be

added to the Constitution several states included the right to own a gun to defend the home, or for hunting. Many of them wanted the constitutional right to have an armed milititia. In the end, the signers settled on the rightt to arm a militia, and did not include specific language about individual gun rights. That doesn't mean people were not allowed to own or use guns. It just means that the right is not protected by the Constitution and can be regulated by each state individually.

[hack89]

11. Ok. Now show me the case law that says all of that.

right now it is simply your opinion.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect individual rights. Every right in the Bill of Rights is an individual right.

[Nitram]

15. You can start here. Enjoy!

https://home.heinonline.org/content/gun-regulation-and-legislation-in-america/

fords.org/gun-laws/federal-law/other-laws/key-federal-acts-regulating-firearms/

http://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/

[hack89]

18. No.

Those links don't prove your point. Perhaps I missed something- can you give me a single case as a starting point?

[hack89]

19. "But with the right of gun ownership enshrined in the U.S. Constitution"

From your second link. Do you agree with this?

[gejohnston]

9. anywhere outside of the South before the mid 1920s

the same was true in most of Western Europe until the Red Scare and the rise of fascism between the world wars.

[yagotme]

12. Per your request,

"Into a school?"

When I went to school, (1980's), in a small town in IL, an English 4 assignment was to do a report on a favorite activity/item. Students were allowed to bring said item to school when the reports were read. On report day, it wasn't unusual to see 4-5 long guns in the English classroom. Nobody was ever shot, much less died. It is the intent of the individual, not the nonliving thing, that causes trouble.

[oneshooter]

13. In south central Kansas, some 55 years ago.

I would carry my BA Remington 22rf to school in a soft case. We put them on a chest in front of the teachers desk till school let out. Then 3-4 of use would hunt rabbits in the alfalfa fields on the way home. I am 63 next month. The schoolhouse was closed and moved into town as a museum.

[Nitram]

16. You've just proved my point. You were not allowed to "bear arms" in school.

Under certain highly-regulated conditions you could bring your firearm and check it in until you left.

[oneshooter]

22. Ok, so you agree that a 10yr old should be allowed to carry a rifle

and ammunition 1 1/2 miles to school. Store it in the classroom, not lock up but simply stored, all day. Pick up said rifle, the ammo was kept in your coat pocket, and carry it, loaded, home.

Would you allow this today?

[Nitram]

23. I was given my first rifle at age 10. I would never have been allowed to carry it loaded, not to

mention, carry it to school loaded. That should never have been allowed. The shooting range where I practice does not allow anyone to carry a loaded firearm outside of a case or a holster.

[oneshooter]

24. And how long ago was this?

The meat I gathered from hunting was a good sized part of our meals.

[Nitram]

25. 1962

[oneshooter]

26. Were you living in a city/town?

There was a group of us, 4 boys, that took our rabbit, quail, and pheasant hunting very seriously. 22lr rifles for rabbit, and 12 or 20ga shotguns for birds. Never had a problem with them at school, or walking with them through the fields.
Today I would only trust my sons, who I taught safety to, to walk with me to bust up game. To be honest, it will be another 3-4 months before I can do any walking. I went yhrough a ceiling 2 weeks age and broke my ancle. So now they escort me from the house to my private 400yd range. Then shag targets for everybody. Will cost me 2-3 hundred rounds ( the grand kids HAVE to shoot the 22rf).

[Nitram]

27. Rural Virginia.

We had a septic field replaced and my Dad asked the guy with the bulldozer to create a firing lane and an earthen backstop in one of our fields. Dad was a reloader, and had a couple of antique match rifles that he'd reload for and we'd do targets or some plinking. We didn't do any hunting. We also reloaded for an old Swiss Army Mauser and a 357 Magnum revolver. At the age of 10, my rifle was a single-shot 22.

[oneshooter]

28. I took my first "big game" with my Grandfathers M92 in 38WCF, no scope. I was 10 years old.

I reload for most of what we shoot. All except for rim fires. All 3 sons and my Loving Wife shoot HighPower and silhouette.

[yagotme]

30. Umm, your original question was to "Carry" "into school".

"Bear" was not in that particular question. Yes, the students "carried" the firearms into the classroom, in cases. There, they were then uncased. If they then picked them up, in conjunction with their report, I guess you could technically say they were "bearing" them at that time.

[Revanchist]

14. You do realize that schools used to have gun clubs, don't you?

[Nitram]

17. Looks pretty well-regulated to me.

They were not "bearing" those arms in class or in the hall between classes.

[yagotme]

31. Poor trigger discipline in some of those pics.

Looks like they could use a little more "regulation". And, I wonder how they got them from the gun locker to the front steps of the school. A lot of rifles for the teacher to carry at one time. I'm betting that each student "bore" their own rifle to the location of the photo, and then back to the storage area. Any takers???

[hack89]

29. But nothing to do with the militia, right? Nt

[hack89]

21. My daughter's university in Minnasota has secure gun lockers for students

because so many were hunters.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Yes, there are two interpretations

You are wrong in that The People were not given any rights by the Bill of Rights. The BoR doesn't create or bestow a right. The BoR was required by the People in order to accept the new government because many people were rightly suspicious of a new federal government. You are also wrong concerning "bearing a firearm in public". For most of US history states regulated both open and concealed carry. OC was rather normal but restricted somewhat within town limits. CC has, in most states for most of US history, been regulated as requiring a permit. A prominent exception to the CC restriction norm is Vermont which has no permit requirements now nor ever since before its statehood in 1791.

As far as guns in schools, I spent 4 years on the varsity rifle team at my school.

Much of the violence problems in towns and cities is due to gang activity. This has always been the case.
* Stolen cars and chop shops- gang activity
* Alcohol during prohibition- gang activity
* Drug sales- gang activity
* Prostitution- gang activity
* Protection enforcement- gang activity
* Gambling- gang activity

Gang activity thrives on prohibition and banning type laws. Making something more difficult to obtain which folks believe they need fuels black market and gang activity. Once a gun has been fired during a crime it becomes more of a consumable than a hard asset.

Government is coming around slowly on ways to short circuit some of this by making pot legal and allowing gambling at casinos and online. But the pro ban, restrict and confiscate faction of government has been more quiet than usual. Perhaps they are off wearing thinking caps having decided among themselves, "Jesse, we have to cook!"

[jimmy the one]

33. boring bor

dscntnt: The BoR was required by the People in order to accept the new government because many people were rightly suspicious of a new federal government.

You mean mainly the writers of the constitution & political figures, since approx 98% of americans could not even vote, nor did vote for geo washington even.

dscntnt: You are wrong in that The People were not given any rights by the Bill of Rights. The BoR doesn't create or bestow a right.

The bill of rights was both a restriction on congress & a guarantee of individual rights (in 2nA case, the right to belong to a well regulated militia, right as a duty, as per the 1688 british have arms decree):

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

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

Wm Rawle, 1829, A view of the constitution, all caps in link, some 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

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Apologies for the quote. It should heave been, "Jimmy, we have to cook."

JTO: "The bill of rights was both a restriction on congress & a guarantee of individual rights (in 2nA case, the right to belong to a well regulated militia, right as a duty, as per the 1688 british have arms decree):"

If the right to belong to a well regulated militia exists, how does that equal the 2A being a limitation on the people to only have arms if they so belong?

The 2A does not read, "...if..." or "...only when...". In light of the interpretation of every other right listed in the BoR, the entire document has the purpose and effect to protect personal rights and limit government. Initially to limit the federal government but most of the protections and limits have been extended to limit state governments as well.

"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."

I couldn't have said it better.

[jimmy the one]

36. both limitation and protection in bor

disntnt: If the right to belong to a well regulated militia exists, how does that equal the 2A being a limitation on the people to only have arms if they so belong?

Well you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it comprehend I guess.
The limitation was on congress, not on the people. The individual right was to the people to belong to militia as a duty. Reread my above post which you responded to, maybe it will begin to make sense (cough).
There is a difference between owning guns, and having a right to them.
----------------------------------------------------
rawle: "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."

dscntn replied: I couldn't have said it better.

Why did you omit and or overlook Wm Rawle's title, which I clearly emboldened especially for you?: 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 rawle's view of the constitution, 1825

Rawle felt the particular limitations on congress in the bill of rights helped provide security to individual rights, so, as encyc brittanica and wiki wrote, the bill of rights was: a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments.

--------------------------------------------------
dscntnt: In discussing miller provide for us in detail......the failings of the appellants which precluded a decision for them.
How did this case reach the high court?
What was the lower court's decision leading to the Miller appeal?
Can you show from the writings of Madison exactly and absolutely what he intended?

I figure you're old enough to do your own research by now.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. "...you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it comprehend..."

I agree and offer your latest reply as evidence:

JTO: "The individual right was to the people to belong to militia as a duty."

How does a right become a duty? Where is the term "duty" found in the 2A?
FYI: I did my own research; it doesn't and it isn't.

Why did you omit and or overlook Wm Rawle's title...

I didn't overlook it. As far as not reposting it where I quoted what you wrote, I figured you were able reread what you wrote and do your own research.

Rawle felt the particular limitations on congress in the bill of rights helped provide security to individual rights, so, as encyc brittanica and wiki wrote, the bill of rights was: a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments.

Yes, as do I.

Regarding Miller:

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.

And Judge Ragon was correct:

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
*-The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
*-The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
*-The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
*-The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.

[jimmy the one]

38. I'm so excited, I just can't hide it

dscntnt posted: And Judge Ragon was correct:
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
*-The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
*-The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
*-The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
*-The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Thanks for making my point. You reiterated what the unanimous 8 supreme court justices ruled upon, as cited in my previous posts.

I'm so excited. I just can't hide it. So I'll repost what discontent inter alia irony posted:

*-The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. re: "Thanks for making my point."

I infer thanks are appropriate in both directions for several issues:
* "...protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." Since the 2A is a personal and individual right, it is the personal and individual right of "the people" to keep and bear military grade weapons.
* You imply that you don't understand the implications and duties regarding doing your own research in that: "The 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 the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." This decision by the court is arrived upon based on the evidence presented. You're quoting the prosecution's argument not the court's decision. Since it is beyond the purview of a judge to bring evidence to the court and since the neither defendants nor counsel appeared, the decision rendered draws solely from the points argued by the prosecutors and existing relevant laws.

And further, my argument:

How does a right become a duty? Where is the term "duty" found in the 2A?
FYI: I did my own research; it doesn't and it isn't.

Using the same logic as the SC in the Miller decision, your failure to oppose my argument tends to support it as fact.

[jimmy the one]

40. miller said no individual rkba

discntnt: You're quoting the prosecution's argument not the court's decision. Since it is beyond the purview of a judge to bring evidence to the court and since the neither defendants nor counsel appeared, the decision rendered draws solely from the points argued by the prosecutors and existing relevant laws.

That's the gun lobby rendition of it, their song & dance to water down the 1939 supreme court miller decision that clearly stood for a militia interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
That's the gun lobby's concocted propaganda they feed to gullible saps who want to believe they have an unfettered right to keep & bear most all kinds of guns & military style firearms without ever having to do a single day in military service to america.

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

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. re: "miller said no individual rkba"

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.

Quoting your post #40: "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."

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.

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

Back to the questions you apparently fear to answer:

And further, my argument:

How does a right become a duty? Where is the term "duty" found in the 2A?
FYI: I did my own research; it doesn't and it isn't.

Using the same logic as the SC in the Miller decision, your failure to oppose my argument tends to support it as fact.

[jimmy the one]

42. read and understand 1939 miller decision

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

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. re: "Abandonment by defense counsel occurs & occurred... You make little sense."

To you at least. Your loss not mine.

[jimmy the one]

32. 1939 Miller decision in supreme court

(Heller) a political verdict, 5-4, and a subversion of the 2nd amendment by right wing demagogue scalia.

In 1939 the supreme court previously 'last' ruled on the 2ndA, a unanimous 8-0 ruling (1 recusal since new arrival) and offered this interpretation:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
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.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

also in 1939 ruling: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

This 1939 supreme court ruling on miller was UNANIMOUS. Not one justice felt the above wording to be wrong or misleading about any individual rkba, they clearly called it for the militia interpretation. Not one justice thought 'whoa fellow justices, look how we worded that, future generations are gonna think we're ruling for a militia interp' Nope, all thought it was proper wording.
.. Note, the 9th justice later wrote a book or paper supporting gun control.

Tack on amicus brief citing adams iirc by justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment, the contention was summarily rejected as follows:
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

Scalia kicked stare decisis (scotus bound by previous interpretations handed down thru the years), in the ass & the right wing put him on a pedestal praising his deceitful greatness. Trump one.

US Militia code, circa 1903 under teddy roosevelt: 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, .. et cetera:
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=206865

Note in class 2, the unorganized militia (99% of americans belong or belonged or will belong) does not meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment, in that, by definition, an unorganized militia is NOT well regulated. It could not possibly be what madison intended in 1791..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. In discussing miller provide for us in detail...

...the failings of the appellants which precluded a decision for them.

How did this case reach the high court?
What was the lower court's decision leading to the Miller appeal?
Can you show from the writings of Madison exactly and absolutely what he intended?