NJNP: Our system says we have to abide by SCOTUS decisions, but that doesn't mean they have decided correctly. Either in a general moral sense, or in the stricter sense of correctly interpreting law.
Exactly. And remember the heller 2008 as well as 2010 McDonald decision was a 5-4 ruling, the 4 more liberal justices ruling for the militia interpretation, while the 4 rightwing justices & middling kennedy for the individual RKBA. It's sad that headuphisass Thomas even had a say in this, just voted as 'massah scalia' tole him to - & yes I am implying he's pretty much a slave to scalia - (I'll counter any backlash with how I worked for Obama's election 2008 & voted for him twice & have kudos in civil rights. I'm not so keen on cosby anymore either).
Contrast the scotus 5-4 heller decision with the 1939 miller decision, which was unanimous 8-0 (one justice recused since he just arrived on scene near trial started, but he later was pro guncontrol).
This is what the 8 justices agreed to in 1939:
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. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=174
You'd think, that if any of those 8 justices felt 2ndA intended an individual RKBA, at least one of them would've piped up & said 'look how we worded that, future generations are going to think we intended for a militia-centric interpretation and not an individual right, we better change something in our wording'.
But not one of them thunk to do that.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause
= new reply since forum marked as read