Not a correct reading of the Miller case. What the SCOTUS decided in Miller was that Miller had a right to bear arms in his OWN PERSONAL defense.
Well, the parts of the Miller case I’m reading are copied below. They talk about the Militia reffered to in the 2cd amendment as being “comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the
common defense….when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves…” (emphasis added.)
Can anyone point out where in the Miller decision is mentions “Miller had a right to bear arms in his OWN PERSONAL defense.”? I’m not seeing it.
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Government/Courts/U.S. Supreme Court/Miller/US v. Miller Summary
The Court can not 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
can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right
to keep and bear such a weapon.
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Government/Courts/U.S. Supreme Court/Miller/US v. Miller
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 forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted
and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is
set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without
the consent of Congress. The sentiment at the time strongly disfavored
standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country
and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily,
soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable
of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens
enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when
called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
